var a=Array.from({length:10000},()=>Math.floor(Math.random() * 10001))
a.sort()[0];
a.reduce((a,c) => a < c ? a : c)
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
sort | |
reduce |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
sort | 8310.1 Ops/sec |
reduce | 156307.4 Ops/sec |
I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark.
What is being tested?
The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: sorting an array using the Array.sort()
method and reducing the same array to find the minimum value using the Array.reduce()
method with a custom callback function.
Options compared
Two options are being compared:
Array.sort()
method to sort the entire array in ascending order. The first element of the sorted array is then accessed ([0]
).Array.reduce()
method with a custom callback function that compares two elements and returns the smaller one.Pros and Cons of each approach
Library used
The Array.from()
method is used in the script preparation code to create a new array with 10,000 random elements. The Math.random()
function is used to generate these random numbers.
There are no external libraries explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definition and test cases.
Special JavaScript feature or syntax
None of the special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned in the provided benchmark definition and test cases.
Other alternatives
Some alternative approaches could be:
It's worth noting that these alternatives would likely require significant changes to the benchmark definition and test cases.
The latest benchmark result shows that the reduce
approach is significantly faster than the sort
approach, which may indicate that this is an area where JavaScript optimizations can be improved.