Benchmark: Sort numbers with vs without arguments

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Sort without arguments
return input.sort()
Sort with arguments
return input.sort((a,b) => a-b)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Sort without arguments
Sort with arguments

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance of sorting an array of 1000 random numbers with and without providing a compare function in JavaScript. The test checks which approach is faster.

**Options compared:**

1. **Without arguments**: This means calling the `sort()` method on the array without passing any additional parameters.
2. **With arguments**: This involves passing a compare function to the `sort()` method, where the function takes two elements as input and returns a value indicating their order (either negative for ascending or positive for descending).

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Without arguments:**
	+ Pros:
		- Simpler code
		- Faster execution (since no additional computation is required)
	+ Cons:
		- May not be suitable for complex sorting scenarios where a custom compare function is needed
		- Can be slower than with arguments if the sorting algorithm has to make more comparisons
* **With arguments:**
	+ Pros:
		- More flexible and powerful for complex sorting tasks
		- Allows for custom sorting logic (e.g., sorting by multiple criteria)
	+ Cons:
		- More code is required, which can increase execution time due to parsing and compilation overhead

**Library usage:**

In this benchmark, the `Array.prototype.sort()` method is used, which is a built-in JavaScript library function. The `sort()` method iterates through the array elements and compares them based on the provided compare function or the default sorting behavior.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. It's purely focused on comparing the performance of two common usage scenarios for the `sort()` method.

Now, let's discuss some alternative approaches:

* **Using a different sorting algorithm:** While not part of this benchmark, alternative sorting algorithms like QuickSort, Merge Sort, or Heap Sort could be used to compare performance.
* **Using a parallel implementation:** If multiple CPU cores are available, a parallel implementation of the `sort()` method could significantly improve performance by distributing the sorting work across multiple threads.
* **Using a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler:** Some JavaScript engines, like SpiderMonkey in Firefox, use JIT compilation to optimize performance-critical code. Using a JIT compiler might lead to different benchmark results.
* **Optimizing the input data:** Depending on the specific requirements, generating random numbers with certain properties (e.g., large ranges or distributions) could affect the benchmark results.

Keep in mind that these alternatives are not directly related to the current benchmark but can provide valuable insights into optimizing JavaScript performance.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/112.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 112 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Sort without arguments	118012.6 Ops/sec
Sort with arguments	134609.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Sort numbers with vs without arguments (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Sort without arguments vs Sort with arguments

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Sort without arguments

Sort with arguments

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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