Benchmark: Typed Array Clone

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Script Preparation code:

var a = new Float64Array([1.2, 3.4, 5.6, 7.8, 9.10, -1.2, -3.4, -5.6, -7.8, -9.10])

Tests:

a.slice()
var b = a.slice() a = b;
new Float64Array(a)
var c = new Float64Array(a) a = c;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
a.slice()
new Float64Array(a)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.6 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

new Float64Array(a)

32.0M/s

a.slice()

26.4M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ new Float64Array(a)	31,957,052 Ops/sec
a.slice()	26,432,878 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark provided tests the performance of different methods for cloning a typed array in JavaScript, specifically a `Float64Array`. This benchmark evaluates the speed of two different approaches for creating a copy of the original array (`a`).

### Options Compared

1. **`a.slice()` method**:
   - **Benchmark Definition**: `var b = a.slice()\r\na = b;`
   - **Test Name**: `"a.slice()"`
  
   The `slice()` method creates a shallow copy of a portion of an array into a new array object. In this case, it creates a complete copy of the existing `Float64Array`. The `slice()` method maintains the type of the original array and the contents of the array are copied as they are.

2. **`new Float64Array(a)` constructor**:
   - **Benchmark Definition**: `var c = new Float64Array(a)\r\na = c;`
   - **Test Name**: `"new Float64Array(a)"`
  
   This method constructs a new `Float64Array` and directly initializes it with the content of the existing array `a`. This method effectively copies the contents of `a`, creating a new typed array.

### Pros and Cons of Each Approach

- **`a.slice()`**:
  - **Pros**:
    - Simple and intuitive syntax for copying arrays.
    - Preserves the type and structure of the input array (if the input is a typed array).
  - **Cons**:
    - Slightly slower performance compared to using the constructor due to the overhead of method invocation and potential internal copying mechanisms specific to the array prototype.

- **`new Float64Array(a)`**:
  - **Pros**:
    - Often faster than `slice()` based on benchmark results, as it directly constructs a new typed array from the source, potentially optimizing memory allocation and copying in one step.
    - Type safety is guaranteed since it explicitly creates a `Float64Array`.
  - **Cons**:
    - Slightly less intuitive for developers who may not be familiar with typed arrays and their constructors compared to the common array methods, though this is a minor concern.

### Benchmark Results

From the benchmark results obtained, we see the execution times for each method on Safari 17 under the following conditions:
- **`new Float64Array(a)`** achieved **31,957,052 executions per second**.
- **`a.slice()`** had **26,432,878 executions per second**.

This indicates that the `new Float64Array()` method outperforms the `slice()` method when it comes to cloning a typed array, specifically for the given benchmark.

### Other Considerations and Alternatives

While both options are suitable for cloning typed arrays, developers may consider other alternatives depending on their specific use cases:

1. **Using `Array.from()`**:
   - This method can also be used to create a new populated array, although the output would not be of type `Float64Array` unless explicitly converted.

2. **Spreading Operator** (`...`):
   - This operator allows for easy copying of arrays, e.g., `let b = [...a]`. However, it does not create a typed array, so further conversion would be necessary if typed behavior is required.

3. **`set()` method**:
   - For specific cases where performance is paramount, utilizing the `set()` method of typed arrays may help if you're working within a context that avoids creating intermediate typed arrays, but this is less common for mere copying operations.

Ultimately, the choice between `a.slice()` and `new Float64Array(a)` will largely depend on performance requirements and code clarity. For performance-critical applications dealing with large amounts of numerical data, leveraging typed arrays and the constructor method may lead to more efficient code.

Typed Array Clone (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: `a.slice() vs new Float64Array(a)`

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

a.slice()

new Float64Array(a)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

Typed Array Clone (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: a.slice() vs new Float64Array(a)

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

a.slice()

new Float64Array(a)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `a.slice() vs new Float64Array(a)`