Benchmark: Sort vs ToSorted

Script Preparation code:

const element = [{foo: 100}, {foo:200}, {foo: 50}]

Tests:

sort
const element = [{foo: 100}, {foo:200}, {foo: 50}] const result = [...element].sort((a,b) => a.foo - b.foo)
toSorted
const element = [{foo: 100}, {foo:200}, {foo: 50}] const result = element.toSorted((a,b) => a.foo - b.foo)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
sort
toSorted

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a single JSON object that contains metadata about the test case. In this case:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "Sort vs ToSorted".
* `Description`: A brief description of the test case, but it's empty in this example.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These are code snippets that prepare the JavaScript environment for the test. In this case, both fields are empty, indicating that no specific setup or HTML structure is required.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Sort**
	* This test case creates an array of objects with a single property `foo` and sorts it using the `Array.prototype.sort()` method.
2. **ToSorted**
	* This test case also creates an array of objects with a single property `foo`, but instead of using `Array.prototype.sort()`, it uses a custom sorting function provided by the `toSorted()` library (more on that later).

**Test Cases and Library: toSorted**

The `toSorted()` library is used in one of the test cases. According to the documentation, `toSorted()` provides a simple way to sort an array without mutating the original data.

Pros of using `toSorted()`:

* It's a concise and readable solution that avoids modifying the original array.
* It's often faster than using `Array.prototype.sort()`, since it doesn't require shifting elements in place.

Cons of using `toSorted()`:

* It may have a higher overhead due to function calls, which can impact performance.
* Depending on the implementation, it might not be as efficient as a simple array sort algorithm (e.g., insertion sort).

**Pros and Cons of Array.prototype.sort() vs. toSorted()**

|  | Array.prototype.sort() | toSorted() |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Mutation | Modifies the original array | Does not modify the original array |
| Overhead | Higher due to shifting elements in place | Lower, but might have function call overhead |

**Other Alternatives**

If you need a simple sorting solution, `Array.prototype.sort()` is often a good choice. However, if you're looking for a lightweight and efficient alternative, other options like:

* Using a library like Lodash's `sortBy` or Moment.js's `sortBy`
* Implementing a custom sorting algorithm (e.g., insertion sort)
* Using a data structure that supports efficient sorting, like a balanced binary search tree

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
sort	6180993.0 Ops/sec
toSorted	7002093.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Sort vs ToSorted (version: 0)

test

Comparing performance of: sort vs toSorted

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

sort

toSorted

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):