Benchmark: Already sorted versus random

Script Preparation code:

function shuffle(array) {
  var currentIndex = array.length, temporaryValue, randomIndex;

  // While there remain elements to shuffle...
  while (0 !== currentIndex) {

    // Pick a remaining element...
    randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * currentIndex);
    currentIndex -= 1;

    // And swap it with the current element.
    temporaryValue = array[currentIndex];
    array[currentIndex] = array[randomIndex];
    array[randomIndex] = temporaryValue;
  }

  return array;
}

var sorted = [];
var shuffled = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
  sorted.push('a' + i);
  shuffled.push('a' + i);
}

shuffled = shuffle(shuffled);

​x
 
function shuffle(array) {  var currentIndex = array.length, temporaryValue, randomIndex;​  // While there remain elements to shuffle...  while (0 !== currentIndex) {​    // Pick a remaining element...    randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * currentIndex);    currentIndex -= 1;​    // And swap it with the current element.    temporaryValue = array[currentIndex];    array[currentIndex] = array[randomIndex];    array[randomIndex] = temporaryValue;  }​  return array;}​var sorted = [];var shuffled = [];for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {  sorted.push('a' + i);  shuffled.push('a' + i);}​shuffled = shuffle(shuffled);​​

Tests:

Sort the sorted
var s2 = sorted.sort();
var s2 = sorted.sort();
Sort the shuffled
var s2 = shuffled.sort();
var s2 = shuffled.sort();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
Sort the sorted
Sort the shuffled

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_10_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 53 on Mac OS X 10.10.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Sort the sorted	3066.3 Ops/sec
Sort the shuffled	2980.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 4 months ago):

Overview of the Benchmark

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case designed to compare the performance of the built-in sort() method on two types of arrays: an already sorted array and a randomly shuffled array.

Options Compared

Two options are being compared:

Already Sorted Array: The benchmark tests how fast the sort() method is when given an array that is already in ascending order.
Randomly Shuffled Array: The benchmark also tests how fast the sort() method is when given an array that has been randomly shuffled.

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

Already Sorted Array:

Pros: This approach allows for a more controlled test case, as the input data is deterministic and easily reproducible.
Cons: The performance result may not accurately reflect real-world usage, where inputs are often unsorted or partially sorted.

Randomly Shuffled Array:

Pros: This approach simulates more realistic scenarios, where inputs can be random and unpredictable.
Cons: The performance results may be influenced by the randomness of the input data, making it harder to interpret the results accurately.

Other Considerations

The benchmark uses a simple shuffling algorithm (shuffle() function) to create the randomized array. This is sufficient for this specific test case but might not be efficient enough for more complex scenarios.

Library Used

There doesn't seem to be any external library used in this benchmarking test case.

Special JS Feature or Syntax (None)

No special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested or utilized in this benchmark.

Alternative Approaches

Other alternatives could include:

Using a more efficient sorting algorithm: Instead of relying on the built-in sort() method, which has varying performance characteristics depending on the browser and JavaScript engine, using an external sorting library like QuickSort or Merge Sort.
Testing with larger datasets: Increasing the size of the input arrays to test the performance of the sort() method under heavier loads.
Simulating more complex scenarios: Introducing additional complexity to the input data, such as duplicate elements, negative numbers, or non-numeric values.

By exploring these alternative approaches, you can gain a deeper understanding of the performance characteristics of the sort() method and make more informed decisions about when to use it in your own code.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case designed to compare the performance of the built-in `sort()` method on two types of arrays: an already sorted array and a randomly shuffled array.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Already Sorted Array**: The benchmark tests how fast the `sort()` method is when given an array that is already in ascending order.
2. **Randomly Shuffled Array**: The benchmark also tests how fast the `sort()` method is when given an array that has been randomly shuffled.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Already Sorted Array:**

* **Pros:** This approach allows for a more controlled test case, as the input data is deterministic and easily reproducible.
* **Cons:** The performance result may not accurately reflect real-world usage, where inputs are often unsorted or partially sorted.

**Randomly Shuffled Array:**

* **Pros:** This approach simulates more realistic scenarios, where inputs can be random and unpredictable.
* **Cons:** The performance results may be influenced by the randomness of the input data, making it harder to interpret the results accurately.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark uses a simple shuffling algorithm (`shuffle()` function) to create the randomized array. This is sufficient for this specific test case but might not be efficient enough for more complex scenarios.

**Library Used**

There doesn't seem to be any external library used in this benchmarking test case.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax (None)**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested or utilized in this benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives could include:

1. **Using a more efficient sorting algorithm**: Instead of relying on the built-in `sort()` method, which has varying performance characteristics depending on the browser and JavaScript engine, using an external sorting library like QuickSort or Merge Sort.
2. **Testing with larger datasets**: Increasing the size of the input arrays to test the performance of the `sort()` method under heavier loads.
3. **Simulating more complex scenarios**: Introducing additional complexity to the input data, such as duplicate elements, negative numbers, or non-numeric values.

By exploring these alternative approaches, you can gain a deeper understanding of the performance characteristics of the `sort()` method and make more informed decisions about when to use it in your own code.

Related benchmarks:

Already sorted versus random (version: 1)

Check how much an array sort is faster on an already sorted array or on a randomized one

Comparing performance of: Sort the sorted vs Sort the shuffled

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Sort the sorted

Sort the shuffled

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 4 months ago):