Benchmark: Push to: array vs float32array performance test 3

Tests:

arrays
const a = []; for (let i = 0; i < 10_000; i++) { a.push(i); }
typed arrays
const a = new Float32Array(10_000); for (let i = 0; i < 10_000; i++) { a[i] = i; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
arrays
typed arrays

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:135.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/135.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 135 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
arrays	12697.0 Ops/sec
typed arrays	35996.6 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches:

1. Pushing elements onto an array (JavaScript built-in Array type)
2. Pushing elements onto a typed array (Float32Array in this case)

**What are we testing?**

We're testing how long it takes for each approach to push 10,000 elements into their respective data structures.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Arrays**: JavaScript's built-in Array type.
2. **Typed Arrays**: Float32Array, which is a typed array that stores 32-bit floating-point numbers.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**Arrays:**

Pros:

* Easy to use and implement
* Widely supported by most browsers

Cons:

* Performance can be slower compared to typed arrays due to the overhead of storing and managing primitive values.
* Can lead to memory issues if not handled properly.

**Typed Arrays (Float32Array):**

Pros:

* Provides better performance compared to arrays, especially for numerical computations.
* Reduces memory usage by storing only the actual data.

Cons:

* More complex to use and implement due to the need to specify the data type and size of the array.
* Not all browsers support typed arrays, although most modern ones do.

**Library Used**

In this case, no specific library is used. The benchmark defines a custom script that creates and populates the arrays and typed arrays.

**Special JavaScript Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. It's focused on comparing the performance of two different data structures.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are a few options:

* **Uint8Array**: An unsigned 8-bit integer typed array that can be used for storing binary data.
* **Int8Array**: A signed 8-bit integer typed array that can be used for storing small integers.
* **BigInt**: A JavaScript built-in type that supports arbitrary-precision integers, useful for dealing with very large numbers.

These alternatives offer different trade-offs between performance, memory usage, and complexity.

Related benchmarks:

Push to: array vs float32array performance test 3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: arrays vs typed arrays

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

arrays

typed arrays

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):