Benchmark: number vs float32array vs Uint32Array test 2

Script Preparation code:

var counter = 0;
var taCounterf32 = new Float32Array(1);
var taCounterui32 = new Uint32Array(1);

Tests:

simple var inc
for (let i = 0; i < 2_000_000; i++) { counter++; }
Float32Array var inc
for (let i = 0; i < 2_000_000; i++) { taCounterf32[0]++; }
Uint32Array var inc
for (let i = 0; i < 2_000_000; i++) { taCounterui32[0]++; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
simple var inc
Float32Array var inc
Uint32Array var inc

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:136.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/136.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 136 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Uint32Array var inc

200/s

simple var inc

184/s

Float32Array var inc

85/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Uint32Array var inc	200 Ops/sec
simple var inc	184 Ops/sec
Float32Array var inc	85 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is an essential task for any developer, and MeasuringThat.net provides a valuable resource to compare the execution times of different approaches.

The benchmark test defined in the JSON data measures the execution time of incrementing a variable using three different methods:

1. **Simple `var`**: This approach uses the traditional JavaScript way of incrementing a variable using the `++` operator.
2. **Float32Array `var`**: In this method, an instance of `Float32Array` is created and used to store the value being incremented. The `++` operator is applied directly to the array element at index 0.
3. **Uint32Array `var`**: Similar to the previous approach, but using a Uint32Array instead of Float32Array.

**Comparison:**

The three approaches differ in their performance:

*   Simple `var`: This method uses the traditional JavaScript way and is generally slower due to the overhead of function calls and memory management.
*   Float32Array `var` and Uint32Array `var`: Both methods use typed arrays, which provide faster execution times since they bypass JavaScript's dynamic typing and garbage collection.

**Pros and Cons:**

*   **Simple `var`**:
    *   Pros: Easy to understand and implement, no additional dependencies required.
    *   Cons: Slower due to overhead of function calls and memory management.
*   **Float32Array `var`** and **Uint32Array `var`**:
    *   Pros: Faster execution times since they use typed arrays, reducing the need for dynamic typing and garbage collection.
    *   Cons: May require additional dependencies (e.g., requiring a specific browser or engine to support Float32Array), and the code may be less intuitive for developers not familiar with typed arrays.

**Other Considerations:**

*   **Memory allocation**: Both Float32Array `var` and Uint32Array `var` methods require allocating memory for the array, which can lead to performance issues if done excessively.
*   **Browser support**: The use of Float32Array or Uint32Array may not be supported by all browsers or versions.

**Library Usage:**

The benchmark uses the following libraries:

*   None explicitly mentioned. However, the use of `Float32Array` and `Uint32Array` implies that the browser or engine being tested supports these typed arrays.

**Special JS Features or Syntax:**

There is no specific JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Alternatives:**

If you need to measure JavaScript performance for other scenarios, consider the following alternatives:

*   **V8 Microbenchmark Suite**: A collection of microbenchmarks designed for comparing JavaScript engine performance.
*   **Google's Closure Compiler**: A tool that can be used to measure the size and performance of JavaScript code by compiling it into a smaller format.

These tools provide more comprehensive coverage than MeasuringThat.net, especially for larger benchmarks. However, they may require more setup and expertise to use effectively.

number vs float32array vs Uint32Array test 2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: `simple var inc vs Float32Array var inc vs Uint32Array var inc`

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

simple var inc

Float32Array var inc

Uint32Array var inc

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

number vs float32array vs Uint32Array test 2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: simple var inc vs Float32Array var inc vs Uint32Array var inc

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

simple var inc

Float32Array var inc

Uint32Array var inc

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `simple var inc vs Float32Array var inc vs Uint32Array var inc`