Benchmark: Array Sorting Methods

Script Preparation code:

var array = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,270,271,272,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280]

AخA
 
var array = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,270,271,272,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280]

Tests:

Random Swap

var copy = array.splice(0);
for(var i = 0; i < copy.length; i++){
  var randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * copy.length);
  var temp = copy[i];
  copy[i] = copy[randomIndex];
  copy[randomIndex] = temp;
}
return copy;

 
var copy = array.splice(0);for(var i = 0; i < copy.length; i++){  var randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * copy.length);  var temp = copy[i];  copy[i] = copy[randomIndex];  copy[randomIndex] = temp;}return copy;

Random to End

var copy = array.splice(0);
for(var i = 0; i < copy.length; i++){
  var randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * (copy.length - i));
  copy.push(copy[randomIndex]);
  copy.splice(randomIndex, 1);
}
return copy;

 
var copy = array.splice(0);for(var i = 0; i < copy.length; i++){  var randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * (copy.length - i));  copy.push(copy[randomIndex]);  copy.splice(randomIndex, 1);}return copy;

Random to Second

var copy = array.splice(0);
var shuffled = [];
var length = copy.length;
for(var i = 0; i < length; i++){
  var randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * (length - i));
  shuffled[i] = copy[randomIndex];
  copy.splice(randomIndex, 1);
}
return shuffled;

 
var copy = array.splice(0);var shuffled = [];var length = copy.length;for(var i = 0; i < length; i++){  var randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * (length - i));  shuffled[i] = copy[randomIndex];  copy.splice(randomIndex, 1);}return shuffled;

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
Random Swap
Random to End
Random to Second

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_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/54.0.2840.87 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 54 on Mac OS X 10.11.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Random Swap	6918874.5 Ops/sec
Random to End	7071403.5 Ops/sec
Random to Second	6920972.0 Ops/sec

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

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

Benchmark Overview

The benchmark measures the performance of three different methods for shuffling an array: Random Swap, Random to End, and Random to Second. The goal is to determine which method is the fastest.

Shuffling Methods

Random Swap: This method creates a copy of the original array and then repeatedly swaps two elements in the copy using a random index. The shuffled array is returned at the end.
Random to End: This method creates a copy of the original array and then pushes each element from the beginning to the end of the copy, effectively shuffling the array. After each push, an element is removed from the front of the copy using splice.
Random to Second: This method is similar to Random Swap, but instead of swapping two elements in place, it creates a new shuffled array by pushing each element from the beginning to the end of the original array.

Options Compared

The benchmark compares the performance of these three shuffling methods on an array of 250 elements. The execution time for each method is measured and reported as ExecutionsPerSecond.

Pros and Cons

Random Swap: This method has a time complexity of O(n^2) due to the repeated swapping operations. However, it's simple to implement and doesn't require extra memory.
Random to End: This method has a time complexity of O(n log n) because it uses splice to remove elements from the front of the array. While it's more efficient than Random Swap, it requires additional memory allocation.
Random to Second: This method is similar to Random Swap but uses a different approach to shuffle the array. It has a time complexity of O(n^2) as well.

Other Considerations

The benchmark doesn't account for the order of operations or any potential side effects of shuffling an array.
The use of splice in the Random to End method can be problematic if the original array is modified elsewhere in the code.

Alternatives

If you need to shuffle an array, other methods like Fisher-Yates shuffle or Knuth shuffle might be more efficient and less prone to errors. Additionally, using a library like Lodash's shuffle function can simplify the implementation and provide better performance.

I hope this explanation helps!

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different methods for shuffling an array: Random Swap, Random to End, and Random to Second. The goal is to determine which method is the fastest.

**Shuffling Methods**

1. **Random Swap**: This method creates a copy of the original array and then repeatedly swaps two elements in the copy using a random index. The shuffled array is returned at the end.
2. **Random to End**: This method creates a copy of the original array and then pushes each element from the beginning to the end of the copy, effectively shuffling the array. After each push, an element is removed from the front of the copy using `splice`.
3. **Random to Second**: This method is similar to Random Swap, but instead of swapping two elements in place, it creates a new shuffled array by pushing each element from the beginning to the end of the original array.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three shuffling methods on an array of 250 elements. The execution time for each method is measured and reported as `ExecutionsPerSecond`.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Random Swap**: This method has a time complexity of O(n^2) due to the repeated swapping operations. However, it's simple to implement and doesn't require extra memory.
* **Random to End**: This method has a time complexity of O(n log n) because it uses `splice` to remove elements from the front of the array. While it's more efficient than Random Swap, it requires additional memory allocation.
* **Random to Second**: This method is similar to Random Swap but uses a different approach to shuffle the array. It has a time complexity of O(n^2) as well.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark doesn't account for the order of operations or any potential side effects of shuffling an array.
* The use of `splice` in the Random to End method can be problematic if the original array is modified elsewhere in the code.

**Alternatives**

If you need to shuffle an array, other methods like Fisher-Yates shuffle or Knuth shuffle might be more efficient and less prone to errors. Additionally, using a library like Lodash's `shuffle` function can simplify the implementation and provide better performance.

I hope this explanation helps!

Related benchmarks:

Array Sorting Methods (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Random Swap vs Random to End vs Random to Second

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result