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 month 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

Test name	Executions per second
simple var inc	184.1 Ops/sec
Float32Array var inc	84.7 Ops/sec
Uint32Array var inc	199.7 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months 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.

Related benchmarks:

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

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

Created: 7 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

simple var inc

Float32Array var inc

Uint32Array var inc

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):