Benchmark: Array vs TypedArray write performance2

Tests:

Array write
var array = new Array(100000).fill(0); for (let i=0; i<array.length; i++) { array[i] = array[i] + 1; } let sum = 0; for (let i=0; i<array.length; i++) { sum+= array[i] }
TypedArray write
var typedArray = new Uint8Array(100000).fill(0); for (let i=0; i<typedArray.length; i++) { typedArray[i] = typedArray[i] + 1; } let sum = 0; for (let i=0; i<typedArray.length; i++) { sum += typedArray[i] }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array write
TypedArray write

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array write	3079.1 Ops/sec
TypedArray write	7915.9 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark you've provided focuses on comparing the performance of standard JavaScript arrays against typed arrays, specifically `Uint8Array`, in terms of write operations. It consists of two test cases: one that uses a typical JavaScript array and another that employs a typed array. Here’s a detailed analysis of the different approaches, their pros and cons, and other related considerations.

### Benchmark Test Cases Explained

1. **Array Write Performance**:
   - **Code**:
     ```javascript
     var array = new Array(100000).fill(0);
     for (let i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
       array[i] = array[i] + 1;
     }
     let sum = 0;
     for (let i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
       sum += array[i];
     }
     ```
   - **Test Name**: Array write
   - **Functionality**: This test initializes a standard JavaScript array with 100,000 elements set to 0, increments each element by 1, and finally computes the sum of all elements.

2. **Typed Array Write Performance**:
   - **Code**:
     ```javascript
     var typedArray = new Uint8Array(100000).fill(0);
     for (let i = 0; i < typedArray.length; i++) {
       typedArray[i] = typedArray[i] + 1;
     }
     let sum = 0;
     for (let i = 0; i < typedArray.length; i++) {
       sum += typedArray[i];
     }
     ```
   - **Test Name**: TypedArray write
   - **Functionality**: This test performs the same operations as the array test but uses a `Uint8Array`, which is a type of typed array designed for handling binary data in an array-like structure with specific numeric types.

### Comparison of Options

- **Standard JavaScript Array vs. Typed Array**:
  - **Standard Array**:
    - **Pros**:
      - Flexible: Can hold any data type (objects, numbers, strings).
      - Rich built-in methods for manipulation (e.g., `map`, `filter`, etc.).
    - **Cons**:
      - Can introduce overhead due to being a general-purpose data structure, which may slow down operations involving a large number of elements.
      - Elements can be of varying types, which might introduce additional overhead for certain operations.

- **Typed Array (`Uint8Array`)**:
    - **Pros**:
      - Optimized for performance, particularly for numerical data, making operations faster.
      - Uses a fixed size and data type, meaning less overhead when storing data.
      - More efficient regarding memory usage, especially for large datasets.
    - **Cons**:
      - Limited to a specific data type (in this case, unsigned 8-bit integers).
      - Fewer built-in methods compared to standard arrays, which can restrict functionality or necessitate additional utility functions.

### Benchmark Results

Based on the latest execution results from the benchmark:

- **Typed Array**:
  - **Executions Per Second**: 7915.94
  - This indicates that operations using the `TypedArray` are significantly faster than those using the standard array, suggesting an advantage in performance for operations involving large datasets of number types.

- **Standard Array**:
  - **Executions Per Second**: 3079.10
  - This demonstrates that while standard arrays are versatile, their performance lags behind typed arrays for numerical data operations under heavy workloads.

### Other Considerations and Alternatives

1. **Use-Cases**:
   - **When to use Standard Arrays**: Ideal for scenarios requiring a mix of data types or when using array methods that don't exist for typed arrays.
   - **When to use Typed Arrays**: Particularly advantageous in applications involving large volumes of numerical data, such as scientific computing, graphics operations, or game development.

2. **Alternatives**:
   - **`ArrayBuffer`**: A low-level representation of binary data that can be used alongside typed arrays for more complex data manipulations.
   - **Other Typed Array Types**: Besides `Uint8Array`, there are various typed arrays (e.g., `Int16Array`, `Float32Array`, etc.) that cater to different numerical needs, each optimized for different ranges and types of numeric data.

3. **Context in Performance**: The results may vary based on the engine optimization, hardware, and other factors in the runtime environment. It’s important to profile in the specific context of usage to make informed decisions based on performance needs.

In conclusion, the benchmark illustrates that while standard JavaScript arrays are versatile, typed arrays like `Uint8Array` provide a significant performance boost for numerical operations, making them a better choice for specific scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

Array vs TypedArray write performance2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Array write vs TypedArray write

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array write

TypedArray write

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):