Benchmark: Comb Sort vs. Native Sort

Script Preparation code:

var sampleData = [];
for (var i=0; i < 1000; i++){ 
  sampleData.push({value: (Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000))});
}

var selectorFn = function(x) { 
  return x.value;  
}

​x
 
var sampleData = [];for (var i=0; i < 1000; i++){   sampleData.push({value: (Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000))});}​var selectorFn = function(x) {   return x.value;  }

Tests:

Native Sort DESC

var order = "desc";

sampleData.sort(function(a,b){
	var x = selectorFn(a); var y = selectorFn(b);
	var res = ((x < y) ? -1 : ((x > y) ? 1 : 0));

	return order === "desc" ? -1*res : res;
})

 
var order = "desc";​sampleData.sort(function(a,b){    var x = selectorFn(a); var y = selectorFn(b);    var res = ((x < y) ? -1 : ((x > y) ? 1 : 0));​    return order === "desc" ? -1*res : res;})

Native Sort ASC

var order = "asc";

sampleData.sort(function(a,b){
	var x = selectorFn(a); var y = selectorFn(b);
	var res = ((x < y) ? -1 : ((x > y) ? 1 : 0));

	return order === "desc" ? -1*res : res;
})

 
var order = "asc";​sampleData.sort(function(a,b){    var x = selectorFn(a); var y = selectorFn(b);    var res = ((x < y) ? -1 : ((x > y) ? 1 : 0));​    return order === "desc" ? -1*res : res;})

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
Native Sort DESC
Native Sort ASC

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/52.0.2743.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 52 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native Sort DESC	251.0 Ops/sec
Native Sort ASC	245.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

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

Benchmark Overview

The benchmark compares two sorting algorithms: Native JavaScript sort and Comb Sort, which is an alternative sorting algorithm. The goal is to measure their performance on a large dataset of random numbers.

Script Preparation Code

The script preparation code generates a sample dataset of 1000 objects with random values between 0 and 1000. Each object has a value property that will be used for sorting. The selectorFn function is defined, which returns the value of each object in the dataset.

Individual Test Cases

There are two test cases:

Native Sort DESC: This test case sorts the sample data in descending order using the native JavaScript sort function.
Native Sort ASC: This test case sorts the sample data in ascending order using the native JavaScript sort function.

What's being compared?

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two sorting algorithms:

Native JavaScript sort: This is the built-in sorting algorithm provided by JavaScript, which uses a variation of quicksort.
Comb Sort: This is an alternative sorting algorithm that uses a combination of swap and increment operations to reduce the number of comparisons needed.

Pros and Cons

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

Native JavaScript sort:
- Pros:
  - Fast and efficient for most use cases.
  - Well-supported by modern browsers and Node.js.
- Cons:
  - Can be slow for very large datasets due to the overhead of recursive function calls.
  - May not perform well on certain types of data, such as nearly sorted or nearly unsorted data.
Comb Sort:
- Pros:
  - Can be faster than native JavaScript sort for very large datasets due to its optimized swap and increment operations.
  - Can handle near-sorted or near-unsorted data more efficiently.
- Cons:
  - May not perform well on small datasets due to the overhead of unnecessary swaps and increments.
  - Requires additional memory to store the gap value.

Library

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the sort function used in the test cases is implemented by a browser or Node.js engine, which may use various sorting algorithms internally.

Special JS feature or syntax

The benchmark uses the var keyword for variable declaration, which is an older syntax that was widely supported in early versions of JavaScript. It's still used today, but it's generally recommended to use let and const instead for better scoping and security.

Other alternatives

Some other sorting algorithms that could be tested alongside Comb Sort include:

Bubble sort
Insertion sort
Merge sort
Quick sort (a variation of the quicksort algorithm used by native JavaScript sort)
Heap sort

These algorithms have different trade-offs in terms of performance, memory usage, and complexity, making them suitable for different use cases.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code generates a sample dataset of 1000 objects with random values between 0 and 1000. Each object has a `value` property that will be used for sorting. The `selectorFn` function is defined, which returns the value of each object in the dataset.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Native Sort DESC**: This test case sorts the sample data in descending order using the native JavaScript sort function.
2. **Native Sort ASC**: This test case sorts the sample data in ascending order using the native JavaScript sort function.

**What's being compared?**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two sorting algorithms:

1. Native JavaScript sort: This is the built-in sorting algorithm provided by JavaScript, which uses a variation of quicksort.
2. Comb Sort: This is an alternative sorting algorithm that uses a combination of swap and increment operations to reduce the number of comparisons needed.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Native JavaScript sort**:
	+ Pros:
		- Fast and efficient for most use cases.
		- Well-supported by modern browsers and Node.js.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slow for very large datasets due to the overhead of recursive function calls.
		- May not perform well on certain types of data, such as nearly sorted or nearly unsorted data.
* **Comb Sort**:
	+ Pros:
		- Can be faster than native JavaScript sort for very large datasets due to its optimized swap and increment operations.
		- Can handle near-sorted or near-unsorted data more efficiently.
	+ Cons:
		- May not perform well on small datasets due to the overhead of unnecessary swaps and increments.
		- Requires additional memory to store the gap value.

**Library**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the `sort` function used in the test cases is implemented by a browser or Node.js engine, which may use various sorting algorithms internally.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark uses the `var` keyword for variable declaration, which is an older syntax that was widely supported in early versions of JavaScript. It's still used today, but it's generally recommended to use `let` and `const` instead for better scoping and security.

**Other alternatives**

Some other sorting algorithms that could be tested alongside Comb Sort include:

* Bubble sort
* Insertion sort
* Merge sort
* Quick sort (a variation of the quicksort algorithm used by native JavaScript sort)
* Heap sort

These algorithms have different trade-offs in terms of performance, memory usage, and complexity, making them suitable for different use cases.

Related benchmarks:

Comb Sort vs. Native Sort (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native Sort DESC vs Native Sort ASC

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result