Benchmark: lodash test sort by 1 vs 2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/2.4.1/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

function shuffle(a) {
    var j, x, i;
    for (i = a.length; i; i--) {
        j = Math.floor(Math.random() * i);
        x = a[i - 1];
        a[i - 1] = a[j];
        a[j] = x;
    }
}
var all = [];
var ids = [];
var allLength = 1000;
var idsLength = 100;

for(var i = 0; i < allLength; i++) {
  all[i] = i;
}

for(var i = 0; i < allLength; i++) {
  ids[i] = i;
}
ids = ids.splice(allLength - idsLength)
shuffle(all);
shuffle(ids);

Tests:

sort by 1
var output = _.sortBy(ids) console.log(output);
sort by twice
let output = _.sortBy(ids) output = _.sortBy(ids, a => a[5]) console.log(output);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
sort by 1
sort by twice

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 10 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided benchmark focuses on evaluating the performance of sorting operations using the Lodash library, specifically comparing two approaches to sorting an array of integers.

### Overview of Test Cases

1. **Test case "sort by 1":**
   - **Benchmark Definition:** `var output = _.sortBy(ids);`
   - In this test case, the `_.sortBy` function from Lodash is used to sort the array `ids`, which contains integers ranging from 0 to 999. The default behavior of `_.sortBy` sorts the array by the values themselves.

2. **Test case "sort by twice":**
   - **Benchmark Definition:** 
     ```javascript
     let output = _.sortBy(ids);
     output = _.sortBy(ids, a => a[5]);
     ```
   - Here, the test first performs a basic sort on the `ids` array, similar to the first test case. Then, it attempts to sort the array again using a sort criterion that accesses index 5 of each element in the array. However, since `ids` consists of simple integers and not arrays or objects, accessing `a[5]` will always be `undefined` for all elements (0 to 999), resulting in unexpected behavior.

### Comparison of Approaches

- **Pros of the first approach ("sort by 1"):**
  - Straightforward and efficient: The first test directly sorts the array using its values, which is likely the more efficient method as it does not require additional logic or computations.
  - Clarity: This approach is simple and direct, making it clear what is being sorted and how.

- **Cons of the first approach:**
  - Limited use case: This method is suitable for sorting simple arrays by their values. If a more complex sorting criterion were needed, it might be too limiting.
  
- **Pros of the second approach ("sort by twice"):**
  - Flexibility: This method allows for the use of a custom sorting function, which can sort based on more complex criteria if the data structure allows it (e.g., objects or nested arrays).
  
- **Cons of the second approach:**
  - Misuse of sorting criteria: As mentioned, the use of `a[5]` with simple integers is incorrect and results in an unnecessary evaluation that leads to undefined behavior.
  - Potential performance hit: The double call to `_.sortBy` could lead to increased overhead.

Considering the above, the "sort by twice" test case inadvertently introduces inefficiency and may not yield meaningful results due to the improper use of sorting criteria.

### Library Usage

#### Lodash
- **Purpose:** Lodash is a popular utility library in JavaScript that provides simplified modular methods for common programming tasks, such as manipulating arrays, numbers, objects, strings, etc. The `_.sortBy` function is a key feature of Lodash, enabling developers to sort arrays effortlessly with different criteria.

### Other Alternatives

For sorting operations in JavaScript, developers might consider several alternatives:

1. **Native JavaScript's Array.sort() Method:**
   - The built-in `array.sort()` method can sort elements in an array. It's very flexible and can take a callback function as an argument for custom sorting. However, its default behavior sorts strings based on Unicode code points.

```javascript
   ids.sort((a, b) => a - b); // Sorting numerically
   ```

2. **Using Other Libraries:**
   - Other utility libraries such as Underscore.js or native methods in modern JavaScript (ES6) can achieve similar tasks but may have different performance characteristics.

3. **Custom Sort Functions:**
   - Writing your own sort function can sometimes yield better performance for specific datasets or requirements, especially if you have knowledge about the data being sorted.

In summary, the benchmark evaluates how `_.sortBy` performs with different input criteria—one directly on values and another using a potentially erroneous custom criterion. The results highlight the efficiency of traditional sorting methods while underscoring the importance of correctly structured sorting logic in more complex scenarios.

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/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
sort by 1	27124.4 Ops/sec
sort by twice	20639.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash test sort by 1 vs 2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: sort by 1 vs sort by twice

Created: 10 days ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

sort by 1

sort by twice

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 10 days ago):