Benchmark: string array sort comparison 3

Script Preparation code:

var string1 = ["lorem", "ipsum", "sim", "dolor", "amet", "sensei", "shaolin", "eight", "nine", "ten"];
var string2 = ["lorem", "ipsum", "sim", "dolor", "amet", "sensei", "shaolin", "eight", "nine", "ten"];
for(let i=0; i<2; i++) string1.push(...string1);
for(let i=0; i<5; i++) string2.push(...string2);
var arr21 = string1;
var arr22 = string1;
var arr51 = string2;
var arr52 = string2;

Tests:

simple sort
arr51.sort()
localeCompare sort
arr52.sort((a,b) => a.localeCompare(b))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
simple sort
localeCompare sort

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the performance of sorting arrays with different algorithms.

The script preparation code creates two arrays, `string1` and `string2`, which are then modified by appending duplicate elements. These arrays are then reassigned to new variables: `arr21`, `arr22`, `arr51`, and `arr52`.

**Options Compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **Native sort**: The first test case, "simple sort", tests the native JavaScript sorting algorithm.
2. **LocaleCompare sort**: The second test case, "localeCompare sort", tests a sorting algorithm that uses the `localeCompare` function to compare strings.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **Native sort**: This is the default sorting algorithm in JavaScript. It has the advantage of being fast and efficient but may not perform well for certain types of data (e.g., strings).
2. **LocaleCompare sort**: This algorithm uses the `localeCompare` function to compare strings, which can be more accurate than native sorting for strings that require locale-specific sorting.

Pros:

* Can handle strings with non-ASCII characters
* Supports locale-specific sorting

Cons:

* May be slower than native sorting due to the additional processing required by `localeCompare`
* Requires modern JavaScript engines that support the `localeCompare` function (not available in older browsers)

**Library: Locale**

The `localeCompare` function is a built-in function in modern JavaScript engines. It takes two strings as input and returns an integer value indicating their relative order.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement your own sorting algorithm, some alternatives could be:

1. **QuickSort**: A popular and efficient sorting algorithm with a time complexity of O(n log n).
2. **MergeSort**: Another efficient sorting algorithm with a time complexity of O(n log n).
3. **Heap Sort**: A simple and efficient sorting algorithm with a time complexity of O(n log n).

However, these alternatives would require implementing the sorting algorithm from scratch, whereas using native or locale-specific sorting algorithms can be more straightforward.

Keep in mind that this benchmark is designed to test specific aspects of JavaScript performance, so implementing alternative sorting algorithms might not provide meaningful results.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.77 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 70 on Mac OS X 10.13.4

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
simple sort	119786.5 Ops/sec
localeCompare sort	3803.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string array sort comparison 3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: simple sort vs localeCompare sort

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

simple sort

localeCompare sort

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):