Benchmark: Float32Array .set vs manual

Script Preparation code:

var size = 256*256*4;
var dataTensor = new Float32Array(size);
var previous = new Float32Array(size / 4);
var offset = 256*256*3;

for (let i = 0; i < size; i++) {
	dataTensor[i] = 100*Math.random();
  	dataTensor[i*2] = 100*Math.random();
  	dataTensor[i*3] = 100*Math.random();
  	dataTensor[i*4] = 100*Math.random();
	previous[i] = 100*Math.random();
}

Tests:

manually
for (let index = 0; index < previous.length; index++) { dataTensor[index + offset] = previous[index]; }
set
dataTensor.set(previous, offset);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
manually
set

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) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
manually	145.0 Ops/sec
set	261013.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents two test cases:

1. **Manual Approach**: The first test case, represented by the `Benchmark Definition` code `"for (let index = 0; index < previous.length; index++) {\r\n  dataTensor[index + offset] = previous[index];\r\n}"`, tests the manual approach of iterating through the `previous` array and manually setting the corresponding elements in the `dataTensor` array.
2. **Set Method**: The second test case, represented by the `Benchmark Definition` code `"dataTensor.set(previous, offset);"`, tests the use of the `set()` method to set the values in the `dataTensor` array.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare the performance of:

* Manual iteration through the `previous` array
* Using the `set()` method to set values in the `dataTensor` array

**Pros and Cons**

* **Manual Approach**:
	+ Pros: Can be more intuitive and easier to understand for some developers.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of manual iteration and indexing.
* **Set Method**:
	+ Pros: Typically faster and more efficient, as it leverages native JavaScript optimizations.
	+ Cons: May require more code and understanding of the `set()` method's behavior.

**Library**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used. However, some libraries may be implicitly required due to their widespread adoption in the industry (e.g., Webpack or Node.js).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks like this one, consider the following:

* Use a representative set of test cases to ensure accurate results.
* Ensure that the test code is concise and easy to understand.
* Use a consistent naming convention for variables and functions.
* Avoid using global variables or unnecessary dependencies in the test code.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to testing performance in JavaScript include:

* Using a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler, such as V8, to compile and optimize the test code.
* Utilizing WebAssembly (WASM) for better performance.
* Implementing parallelization or concurrent execution using techniques like Web Workers or async/await.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require additional infrastructure and expertise to implement effectively.

Related benchmarks:

Float32Array .set vs manual (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: manually vs set

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

manually

set

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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