Benchmark: TESTSort - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var nums = Array.from({length: 40}, () => Math.random() * 100 |0)
var unums = new Uint16Array(nums);

Tests:

JS
nums.sort((x,y) => x-y)
Typed
unums.sort((x,y) => x-y)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JS
Typed

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark, named "TESTSort", tests the performance of sorting algorithms on two types of arrays: regular JavaScript arrays (`nums`) and Typed Arrays (`unums`). In this case, we're comparing the performance of a simple bubble sort algorithm implemented using a compare function.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code generates an array of random numbers between 0 and 100 for the `nums` variable. It then creates a new instance of `Uint16Array`, which is a typed array, from the generated numbers in `nums`.

**HTML Preparation Code**

There's no HTML preparation code provided, so we'll skip that part.

**Individual Test Cases**

We have two test cases:

1. **JS**: This test case uses a regular JavaScript array (`nums`) and tests the performance of the sorting algorithm implemented using a compare function.
2. **Typed**: This test case uses a Typed Array (`unums`) and also tests the same sorting algorithm as before.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, we're not explicitly using any external libraries or frameworks. However, we are using JavaScript's built-in `Array` and `Uint16Array` constructors, which are part of the standard library.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There doesn't seem to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark. It's a straightforward implementation of bubble sort using compare functions.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

In general, comparing performance between regular JavaScript arrays and Typed Arrays can help developers understand the benefits of using typed arrays for certain types of data. Here are some pros and cons:

* **Regular JavaScript Arrays:**
	+ Pros:
		- Easier to work with, as they're more versatile and flexible.
		- More memory-efficient for smaller datasets.
	+ Cons:
		- Slower performance due to the overhead of dynamic typing.
* **Typed Arrays:**
	+ Pros:
		- Faster performance, especially for larger datasets or numerically-intensive operations.
		- More memory-efficient, as they're designed specifically for storing numeric data.
	+ Cons:
		- Less flexible and less suitable for storing non-numerical data.

**Other Alternatives**

If we were to explore other alternatives, we might consider testing:

* Other sorting algorithms (e.g., quicksort, mergesort) to see which one performs best in this specific scenario.
* Different data types or structures (e.g., objects, sets) to understand how they affect performance.
* External libraries or frameworks that provide optimized implementations of common operations (e.g., caching, parallelization).
* Other browsers or environments to see if the results hold up across different platforms and devices.

I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:126.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/126.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 126 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JS	5119982.0 Ops/sec
Typed	1811646.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

TESTSort (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JS vs Typed

Created: 7 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JS

Typed

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):