Benchmark: sort vs reverse - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var n = 9998

Tests:

sort
const repeat = Math.sqrt(n); const result = [[], []]; for (let i = 1; i <= repeat; i++) { if(n % i === 0) { result.push(i); if (i !== repeat) result.push(n / i); } } result.sort((a, b) => a - b)
reverse
const repeat = Math.sqrt(n); const result = [[], []]; for (let i = 1; i < repeat; i++) { if(n % i === 0) { result[0].push(i); result[1].push(n / i); } } if (Number.isInteger(repeat)) result[0].push(repeat) result[1].reverse(); result.flat()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
sort
reverse

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 JSON benchmark definition and explain what is being tested, compared options, pros and cons of each approach, library usage, special JavaScript features or syntax, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark definition measures two different approaches to find all factors of a given number `n`.

**Script Preparation Code:**
The script preparation code initializes a variable `n` with the value 9998.

**Html Preparation Code:**
There is no HTML preparation code provided.

**Individual Test Cases:**

There are two test cases:

1. **Test Case:** "sort"
	* The benchmark definition uses a `for` loop to iterate from 1 to the square root of `n`, and for each iteration, it checks if `n` is divisible by the current number `i`. If it is, both `i` and `n/i` are added to an array `result`.
	* The `sort()` method is then called on the `result` array.
2. **Test Case:** "reverse"
	* Similar to the previous test case, but with a few differences:
		+ The loop only iterates up to the square root of `n`, not including it.
		+ After the loop, it checks if the result is an integer using `Number.isInteger()`. If so, the integer value is added to the first array in the result.
		+ The second array is reversed using the `reverse()` method.

**Library Usage:**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, some JavaScript features are used, such as:

* **Template literals**: Used in the `for` loop to create a string literal with the ` repeat = Math.sqrt(n)`. This is not an exotic feature, but it's worth noting that template literals were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).
* **Integer checks**: The `Number.isInteger()` function is used to check if a value is an integer. This function was also introduced in ES6.

**Special JavaScript Features or Syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. It appears to use standard JavaScript syntax and features.

**Other Considerations:**

* **Performance**: The benchmark measures the execution speed of both approaches, comparing the number of executions per second.
* **Browser vs Browser**: The benchmark runs on Chrome 121 on Windows desktop devices, which means it's possible that the results may not be representative of other browsers or platforms.

**Comparison Options:**

The two test cases compare the following options:

1. **Sorting vs Reversing**: The `sort()` method is compared to reversing an array using `reverse()`. This comparison highlights the trade-offs between these two approaches:
	* Sorting involves iterating over all elements in the array, which can be slower for large arrays.
	* Reversing uses a more straightforward approach that only iterates up to the middle of the array, making it potentially faster for large arrays.

**Pros and Cons:**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Sorting**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be used to sort an array in ascending order.
		+ Can handle duplicate elements.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower for large arrays due to iteration over all elements.
2. **Reversing**
	* Pros:
		+ Faster for large arrays since it only iterates up to the middle of the array.
		+ More straightforward approach.
	* Cons:
		+ Does not sort an array in ascending order.
		+ Requires handling duplicate elements separately.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives for finding factors of a number include:

1. **Prime Factorization**: This involves breaking down the number into its prime factors, which can be more efficient than sorting or reversing.
2. **Math library functions**: Some mathematical libraries provide functions for finding prime factors or factorizations, which can simplify the implementation.

Note that these alternatives may not necessarily outperform the sorting and reversing approaches in this specific benchmark, but they might offer better performance or simplification for other use cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
sort	216838.0 Ops/sec
reverse	229184.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

sort vs reverse (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: sort vs reverse

Created: 9 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

sort

reverse

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):