Benchmark: Math.min.apply vs Spread

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [14, 58, 20, 77, 66, 82, 42, 67, 42, 4]

Tests:

Math.min.apply
const min = Math.min.apply(Math, arr)
Spread
const min = Math.min(...arr)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.min.apply
Spread

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 dive into explaining the benchmark and its results.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches to find the minimum value in an array: `Math.min.apply()` and the spread operator (`...`). The test cases are designed to measure the performance of these two methods on a specific input array `[14, 58, 20, 77, 66, 82, 42, 67, 42, 4]`.

**Options being compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`Math.min.apply()`**: This method applies the `Math.min()` function to an array, using the `apply()` method to call it with the context set to the `Math` object.
2. **Spread operator (`...`)**: This approach uses the spread operator to pass the elements of the input array to the `Math.min()` function.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **`Math.min.apply()`**:
	+ Pros: This method is widely supported across browsers and Node.js versions, as it's a standard part of the JavaScript API. It also provides more control over the context in which the function is called.
	+ Cons: The use of `apply()` can add overhead due to the additional function call, making this approach potentially slower than the spread operator.
* **Spread operator (`...`)**:
	+ Pros: This method is a more modern and concise way to pass arguments to functions. It's also faster than using `apply()`, as it avoids an extra function call.
	+ Cons: The spread operator was introduced in ECMAScript 2015, so older browsers or environments might not support it.

**Library usage:**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that both methods rely on the `Math` object, which is a built-in JavaScript object.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

The spread operator (`...`) was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and provides a concise way to pass elements of an array as separate arguments to functions. This syntax was not available in older versions of JavaScript.

**Benchmark preparation code:**

The script preparation code is `var arr = [14, 58, 20, 77, 66, 82, 42, 67, 42, 4]`, which creates a sample array for the benchmark.

**Alternative approaches:**

There are other ways to find the minimum value in an array:

* Using `Math.min()` without any additional arguments (which is not applicable here, as we're comparing two methods).
* Implementing the min function manually using a loop or recursion.
* Using libraries like Lodash, which provides a `min` function.

However, these alternatives might not be as efficient or concise as the spread operator method used in this benchmark.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its results!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.min.apply	8429964.0 Ops/sec
Spread	12734562.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Math.min.apply vs Spread (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.min.apply vs Spread

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.min.apply

Spread

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):