Benchmark: transrorm template 3

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

transform1
const transform1 = (rowTemplate) => { if (!rowTemplate?.length) { return []; } const rows = rowTemplate.length; const cols = rowTemplate[0].length; const result = []; for (let col = 0; col < cols; col++) { for (let row = 0; row < rows; row++) { result.push(rowTemplate[row][col]); } } return result; }; var t1 = [ ["1", "1", "2", "3", "4", "4"], ["1", "1", "5", "6", "4", "4"] ]; for (var i=0; i < 10000; i++) { transform1(t1); }
transform2
const transform2 = (rowTemplate) => { if (!rowTemplate?.length) { return []; } const rows = rowTemplate.length; const cols = rowTemplate[0].length; const result = new Array(rows * cols); for (let col = 0; col < cols; col++) { for (let row = 0; row < rows; row++) { result.push(rowTemplate[row][col]); } } return result; }; var t1 = [ ["1", "1", "2", "3", "4", "4"], ["1", "1", "5", "6", "4", "4"] ]; for (var i=0; i < 10000; i++) { transform2(t1); }
transform3
const transform3 = (rowTemplate) => { if (!rowTemplate?.length) { return []; } const rows = rowTemplate.length; const cols = rowTemplate[0].length; const result = new Array(rows * cols); for (let col = 0; col < cols; col++) { for (let row = 0; row < rows; row++) { result[col * cols + row] = rowTemplate[row][col]; } } return result; }; var t1 = [ ["1", "1", "2", "3", "4", "4"], ["1", "1", "5", "6", "4", "4"] ]; for (var i=0; i < 10000; i++) { transform3(t1); }
transform4
const transform4 = (rowTemplate) => { if (!rowTemplate?.length) { return []; } const rows = rowTemplate.length; const cols = rowTemplate[0].length; const result = []; for (let col = 0; col < cols; col++) { for (let row = 0; row < rows; row++) { result[col * cols + row] = rowTemplate[row][col]; } } return result; }; var t1 = [ ["1", "1", "2", "3", "4", "4"], ["1", "1", "5", "6", "4", "4"] ]; for (var i=0; i < 10000; i++) { transform4(t1); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
transform1
transform2
transform3
transform4

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month 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
transform1	3802.0 Ops/sec
transform2	2807.2 Ops/sec
transform3	2677.6 Ops/sec
transform4	2403.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark identified as "transrorm template 3" evaluates various implementations of the transformation of a 2D array (or matrix) into a 1D array, focusing on performance. Each implementation is encapsulated in a separate function (`transform1`, `transform2`, `transform3`, and `transform4`), and they are tested by running each function 10,000 times with the same input data (`t1`), which is a 2x6 array.

### Test Cases Overview

1. **transform1**:
   - **Implementation**: This function uses a dynamic array (`result`) to store the output. It traverses the 2D input array (`rowTemplate`) by columns and pushes each element into the `result` array.
   - **Performance**: This function recorded the highest number of executions per second at approximately 3802.01, likely due to its straightforward logic and lack of preallocation of the result array.

2. **transform2**:
   - **Implementation**: Similar to `transform1`, but preallocates the `result` array to the total number of elements (`rows * cols`). However, it still uses `push()` to add items, which may cause dynamic reallocation of the array as its size increases.
   - **Performance**: This implementation performs worse than `transform1`, with about 2807.23 executions per second, primarily because the use of `push()` can be less efficient than direct indexing when the memory allocation isn't optimal.

3. **transform3**:
   - **Implementation**: Like `transform2`, this function also preallocates the `result` array. However, it directly assigns values to the indexed positions in the result array (using calculated indices). This method reduces the number of adjustments to the array size and manipulates the indices more efficiently.
   - **Performance**: It achieved around 2677.57 executions per second, indicating that while it is a better approach to preallocation and direct indexing, it still underperformed relative to `transform1`.

4. **transform4**:
   - **Implementation**: Similar to `transform3`, but it uses an empty array (`result`) and employs direct indexing for adding elements based on calculated positions. The index for the result is calculated as `col * cols + row`, which is intended to optimize memory access.
   - **Performance**: This recorded the lowest performance at about 2403.20 executions per second. The mixed approach of having an empty array (initially) along with direct indexing might not optimize memory management effectively as initially hoped.

### Pros and Cons of Various Approaches

- **Dynamic Array Growth (transform1)**:
  - **Pros**: Simple to implement and use. Easy to read and maintain.
  - **Cons**: Potentially less efficient due to frequent resizing of the underlying array when using `push()`.

- **Preallocation with `push()` (transform2)**:
  - **Pros**: Attempts to allocate memory upfront to avoid frequent resizing.
  - **Cons**: Still suffers the overhead of dynamic array resizing due to `push()`.

- **Preallocation with Direct Indexing (transform3)**:
  - **Pros**: Avoids frequent resizing; direct indexing is typically faster than inserting items using `push()`.
  - **Cons**: Still slightly less performant than dynamic allocation without preallocation due to minor overhead in array management and calculated indices.

- **Mixed Approach with Dynamic and Direct Indexing (transform4)**:
  - **Pros**: Aims to be efficient with indexing.
  - **Cons**: Likely less effective than dedicated strategies for this specific operation (could lead to poor performance).

### Other Alternatives

Beyond the specific implementations in this benchmark, there are various other methods for transforming a 2D array into a 1D array:

- **Using Higher-Order Functions**: Leveraging JavaScript's built-in functions like `flat()` or `reduce()` can provide a more declarative approach, although performance can vary based on implementation details.

- **Typed Arrays**: For more intensive numerical applications, using typed arrays (like `Float32Array` or `Uint16Array`) can yield better performance alongside better memory management.

- **Web Workers**: For very large datasets or complex calculations, offloading transformations to Web Workers can prevent blocking the main thread, enhancing responsiveness even if it doesn't affect raw speed.

In summary, the benchmark serves to compare various strategies on effectively transforming data, with a focus on execution speed. Each implementation has its own merits and trade-offs, and understanding these can help developers make informed decisions based on the particular needs of their applications.

Related benchmarks:

transrorm template 3 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: transform1 vs transform2 vs transform3 vs transform4

Created: one month ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

transform1

transform2

transform3

transform4

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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