Benchmark: indexOf sorted vs non-sorted

Script Preparation code:

var t1 = [], tval = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++){
  var x = ""+Math.random();
  t1.push(x);
  
  var x2 = ""+Math.random();
  tval.push(x2);
}

Tests:

non-sorted
for (var j of tval){ t1.indexOf(j) }
sorted
var t2 = t1.sort() for (var j of tval){ t2.indexOf(j) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
non-sorted
sorted

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 57 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
non-sorted	5795.7 Ops/sec
sorted	6295.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases: "indexOf sorted vs non-sorted". The goal is to measure and compare the performance of two approaches in finding an element using the `indexOf` method in JavaScript arrays:

1. **Non-Sorted Array**: The first test case uses a random array (`tval`) with elements that are not guaranteed to be in any particular order.
2. **Sorted Array**: The second test case sorts the same array (`t1`) before performing the search.

**Options Compared:**

* Non-optimized JavaScript engine (default behavior)
* Optimized JavaScript engine ( likely used for benchmarking purposes)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Non-Sorted Array**
	* Pros:
		+ This is the default behavior in most JavaScript engines.
		+ It's often closer to real-world scenarios, where data may not be always sorted or ordered.
	* Cons:
		+ May perform slower than optimized search algorithms for large datasets.
2. **Sorted Array**
	* Pros:
		+ Can leverage the benefits of a sorted array, such as faster search times.
		+ Demonstrates the impact of ordering on performance in JavaScript arrays.
	* Cons:
		+ May require additional memory to store and maintain the sorted order.

**Library and Purpose:**

In this benchmark, there is no explicitly mentioned library. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript engines often rely on internal libraries and optimizations to achieve better performance. The use of `sort()` in the "Sorted Array" test case suggests that the engine is utilizing its built-in sorting algorithm.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark. It's a straightforward demonstration of how different JavaScript engines handle array search operations.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are a few examples:

* Using `Array.prototype.findIndex()` instead of `indexOf()`, which is a more modern and efficient way to perform searches in arrays.
* Comparing the performance of different data structures, such as linked lists or hash tables, for array search operations.
* Investigating the impact of caching or memoization on array search performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require additional modifications to the benchmark script or instrumentation.

Related benchmarks:

indexOf sorted vs non-sorted (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: non-sorted vs sorted

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

non-sorted

sorted

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):