Benchmark: .sort() vs Math.min - 4 elements

Script Preparation code:

const arr = [2,35,67,3];

Tests:

Array.sort
const arr = [2,35,67,3]; const a = arr.sort(); const min = a[0];
Math min and max
const arr = [2,35,67,3]; const min = Math.min(...arr);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.sort
Math min and max

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases: `.sort()` vs `Math.min` with 4 elements and individual tests for `Array.sort`. I'll break down what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Test Case 1: `.sort()` vs `Math.min - 4 elements`**

This benchmark compares the performance of two approaches:

1. **`.sort()`**: The `sort()` method sorts an array in place, returning the sorted array.
2. **`Math.min()`**: The `Math.min()` function returns the smallest of zero or more numbers.

**Comparison:**

Both methods are used to find the minimum value in a sorted array. However, they have different implementation details:

* `.sort()`: Sorts the entire array first, which can be expensive for large datasets.
* `Math.min()`: Uses a simple algorithm to iterate through the array and find the smallest value.

**Pros/Cons:**

* **`.sort()`**: Pros:
	+ Stable sorting (preserves original order).
	+ Can be used for more complex sorting scenarios.
	Con:
	+ Expensive for large datasets due to the sorting step.
* `Math.min()`: Pros:
	+ Efficient for small arrays.
	+ Only iterates through the array once.
Con:
	+ May not preserve the original order.

**Test Case 2: Individual tests for `Array.sort`**

These individual test cases measure the performance of the `sort()` method on a fixed array:

```javascript
const arr = [2,35,67,3];
const a = arr.sort();
const min = a[0];
```

These tests are designed to isolate the performance impact of the `sort()` method without considering other factors like sorting stability or complexity.

**Library:**

There is no explicit library mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may use internal libraries or optimizations for array sorting and minification operations.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax explicitly used in these benchmarks. The focus is on comparing the performance of two approaches without introducing additional complexity.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative methods, here are a few examples:

* **`Array.prototype.reduce()`**: Can be used to find the minimum value in an array by reducing it to a single value.
* **`Array.prototype.every()`**: Can be used to filter out values that don't meet a condition (e.g., finding all elements less than a certain threshold).
* **Native `min()` function with optional argument**: Some JavaScript engines provide a native `min()` function with an optional argument to specify the initial value of the comparison.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as efficient or straightforward to implement as the original `.sort()` vs `Math.min` comparison.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/86.0.4240.198 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 86 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.sort	5238873.5 Ops/sec
Math min and max	5997078.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

.sort() vs Math.min - 4 elements (version: 0)

.sort() vs Math.min

Comparing performance of: Array.sort vs Math min and max

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.sort

Math min and max

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):