Benchmark: sort vs reduce - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var a=Array.from({length:100},()=>Math.random())

Tests:

sort
a.sort((a,b)=>a-b);
reduce
a.reduce((a,c) => a < c ? a : c)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
sort
reduce

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmarking test case.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two script preparation codes:

1. `a.sort((a,b)=>a-b);`
2. `a.reduce((a,c) => a < c ? a : c)`

These scripts aim to sort an array of 100 random numbers in ascending order using the built-in `sort` and `reduce` methods, respectively.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches:

1. **Sort Method**: Using the built-in `sort` method with a custom compare function that subtracts each element from its next neighbor.
2. **Reduce Method**: Using the built-in `reduce` method to find the smallest number in the array.

**Pros and Cons**

**Sort Method:**

Pros:

* Fast and efficient for sorting large datasets
* Built-in functionality, so no additional library is required

Cons:

* Requires a custom compare function, which can be verbose and less readable
* May not be suitable for arrays with non-numeric values or objects with complex comparison logic

**Reduce Method:**

Pros:

* More concise and readable than the sort method
* Can be used to find the smallest number in an array without requiring a custom compare function

Cons:

* Slower than the sort method, especially for large datasets
* Requires two passes through the array (one for reduction and one for returning the result)

**Library Used**

The benchmark does not explicitly use any external library. However, it relies on the built-in `Array` prototype methods `sort` and `reduce`, which are part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. It only utilizes the built-in methods and basic arithmetic operations.

**Other Considerations**

This benchmark highlights the trade-offs between using built-in methods versus custom implementation for common tasks like sorting arrays. The choice between `sort` and `reduce` depends on the specific requirements of your application, such as performance, readability, or memory usage.

**Alternatives**

If you prefer a different approach:

* For array sorting, consider using the `map`, `every`, and `findIndex` methods instead of `sort`. These can provide more flexibility and control over the sorting process.
* For finding the smallest number in an array, consider using the `Math.min()` function or implementing your own iterative approach.

In summary, this benchmark provides a clear comparison between two approaches for sorting arrays: the built-in `sort` method versus the `reduce` method. While both have their pros and cons, the choice ultimately depends on the specific requirements of your application.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 11_1_0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.96 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Mac OS X 11.1.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
sort	408763.9 Ops/sec
reduce	6104758.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

sort vs reduce (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: sort vs reduce

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

sort

reduce

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):