Benchmark: Javascript Sort - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script>  
  // Built-in with comparison function (default sorting is "dictionary-style")
  function builtin_sort(ary) {
      return ary.sort(function(a, b) {
          return a - b;
      });
  }
</script>

Script Preparation code:

var numbers = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
  numbers[i] = Math.round(Math.random() * 1000000);
}

var strings = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
  strings[i] = Math.round(Math.random() * 1000000).toString();
}

Tests:

Built-in Sort (numbers)
builtin_sort(numbers.slice(0));
Built-in Sort (strings)
builtin_sort(strings.slice(0));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Built-in Sort (numbers)
Built-in Sort (strings)

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/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Built-in Sort (numbers)	1360.9 Ops/sec
Built-in Sort (strings)	999.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is crucial for optimizing code and understanding the impact of different approaches.

The provided benchmark definition json represents a simple JavaScript sorting algorithm microbenchmark. Here's what it tests:

1. **Built-in Sort (numbers)**: This test compares the built-in `sort()` function with a comparison function, sorting an array of 1000 random integers.
2. **Built-in Sort (strings)**: Similar to the first test, but with an array of 1000 random strings.

The script preparation code generates two arrays: `numbers` and `strings`, each containing 1000 random integers and strings, respectively. The `builtin_sort()` function is used as a baseline for comparison.

Now, let's discuss the options compared:

**Option 1:** **Built-in Sort (default)**

* Uses the built-in `sort()` function with its default comparison function.
* Pros:
	+ Fast and efficient, as it leverages the browser's optimized implementation.
	+ Cons:
		- May have performance issues due to factors like memory allocation, garbage collection, or caching.
		- Not suitable for all types of data (e.g., strings with special characters).
* Library: No specific library is used; it's a built-in JavaScript function.

**Option 2:** **Built-in Sort (custom comparison)**

* Uses the `builtin_sort()` function with a custom comparison function.
* Pros:
	+ Can be more efficient for certain types of data, as the custom comparison function can handle edge cases better.
	+ Cons:
		- May have slower performance due to the additional overhead of the custom comparison function.
		- Requires careful implementation of the comparison function to avoid unnecessary work.

The built-in `sort()` function is used in both tests. The difference lies in whether a custom comparison function is used or not. In the first test, no custom comparison function is specified (i.e., the default one is used), while in the second test, a custom comparison function is provided for strings.

Other alternatives to consider:

1. **Quicksort**: A popular sorting algorithm that can be implemented using recursion and iteration. It's generally faster than the built-in `sort()` function but may have issues with certain types of data (e.g., nearly sorted arrays).
2. **Merge Sort**: Another efficient sorting algorithm that can be used as an alternative to `sort()`. It has a time complexity of O(n log n) and is suitable for large datasets.
3. **Timsort**: A hybrid sorting algorithm derived from merge sort and insertion sort, designed to perform well on many kinds of real-world data. It's the default sorting algorithm used in JavaScript engines like V8.

Keep in mind that when choosing a sorting algorithm or library, consider factors like performance, memory usage, and compatibility with different data types and edge cases.

Related benchmarks:

Javascript Sort (version: 0)

Port from jsperf(https://jsperf.com/sorting-algorithms/58)

Comparing performance of: Built-in Sort (numbers) vs Built-in Sort (strings)

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Built-in Sort (numbers)

Built-in Sort (strings)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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