Benchmark: sort vs min/max multi

Script Preparation code:

var v1 = 12345678.12345;
var v2 = 23456789.01234;
var v3 = 34123151.01234;
var v4 = 46342341.12451;
var v5 = 51823423.93172;
var v6 = 66572093.21231;

var arr = [v2, v1, v3, v5, v6, v4]

Tests:

Array.sort
var a = arr.sort(); var min = a[0]; var max = a[arr.length-1];
Math min and max
var min = Math.min(...arr); var max = Math.max(...arr);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.sort
Math min and max

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:95.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/95.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 95 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.sort	875674.1 Ops/sec
Math min and max	44894820.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for finding the minimum and maximum values in an array:

1. `Array.sort()` method
2. Using `Math.min()` and `Math.max()` functions with the spread operator (`...`)

**Script Preparation Code:**
The script creates an array `arr` with six decimal numbers, which will be used to test both approaches.

**Html Preparation Code:**
There is no HTML preparation code provided, so it's likely that the benchmark doesn't require any specific HTML setup.

**Individual Test Cases:**

1. **Array.sort() method:** The benchmark definition uses the `sort()` method on the `arr` array and then extracts the first element (`min`) and the last element (`max`). This approach sorts the entire array, which may not be the most efficient way to find min and max values.
2. **Math min and max:** The second test case uses the `Math.min()` and `Math.max()` functions with the spread operator (`...`) to extract the minimum and maximum values from the `arr` array directly.

**Options Compared:**

* `Array.sort()` vs `Math.min()` and `Math.max()`
* Efficiency of finding min and max values in an array

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Array.sort():**
	+ Pros:
		- Can be used to sort the entire array, which may have other benefits (e.g., organizing data).
	+ Cons:
		- May not be the most efficient way to find min and max values, especially for large arrays.
		- Sorts the entire array, which can affect performance if the array is already sorted or nearly sorted.
* **Math min and max:**
	+ Pros:
		- More efficient for finding min and max values, especially for small to medium-sized arrays.
		- Does not require sorting the entire array.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower for very large arrays due to the use of spread operator (`...`).
		- Requires JavaScript version support for the `Math.min()` and `Math.max()` functions.

**Library:**
No specific library is used in this benchmark.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**
The benchmark uses the spread operator (`...`) with `Math.min()` and `Math.max()`, which is a modern JavaScript feature. This approach allows for concise code but may not be supported in older browsers or environments.

**Other Alternatives:**

* For finding min and max values, other approaches could include:
	+ Using a priority queue data structure.
	+ Utilizing a sorting algorithm like quicksort or heapsort specifically designed for finding min and max values.
	+ Implementing a custom comparison function with the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have varying trade-offs in terms of performance, complexity, and browser support.

Related benchmarks:

sort vs min/max multi (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.sort vs Math min and max

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Array.sort

Math min and max

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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