Benchmark: Array.sort() vs Math.min 4 elements

HTML Preparation code:

const arr = [2,35,67,3];

Script Preparation code:

const arr = [2,35,67,3];

Tests:

Array.sort
const arr = [2,35,67,3]; const a = arr.sort(); const min = a[0];
Math.min
const arr = [2,35,67,3]; const min = Math.min(...arr);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.sort
Math.min

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two JavaScript methods: `Array.sort()` and `Math.min()`, when used to find the smallest element in an array with 4 elements.

**Test Case 1: Array.sort()**

* The script preparation code initializes an array `arr` with 4 elements.
* The test case uses the `sort()` method on this array, which sorts the elements in ascending order. However, instead of sorting all elements, it only returns a new sorted array without modifying the original array.
* The benchmark measures the time taken to execute this method and reports the result as "raw UAString" ( likely obtained from user agent string).

**Test Case 2: Math.min()**

* The script preparation code initializes an array `arr` with 4 elements.
* The test case uses the `Math.min()` function to find the smallest element in this array. This method takes advantage of a special JavaScript feature called "rest parameter" (introduced in ECMAScript 2015), which allows passing multiple arguments to a function.
* The benchmark measures the time taken to execute this method and reports the result as "raw UAString".

**Pros and Cons**

* **Array.sort()**
	+ Pros: Easy to implement, works on any browser.
	+ Cons: Requires sorting all elements in the array (which may not be efficient for large datasets), uses more memory to store the sorted array.
* **Math.min()**
	+ Pros: More efficient than `Array.sort()` since it only needs to find the smallest element, does not require sorting the entire array. This method is also more concise and easier to read.
	+ Cons: Only works on modern browsers that support rest parameters (introduced in ECMAScript 2015).

**Library**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, some JavaScript implementations might use additional libraries for performance optimization.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

The `Math.min()` function uses a special feature called "rest parameter" (introduced in ECMAScript 2015), which allows passing multiple arguments to a function. This is denoted by the three dots (`...`) after the `arr` variable name in the benchmark definition.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need an alternative implementation of the `Math.min()` function that works on older browsers, you could consider using a custom function like this:

```javascript
function min(arr) {
  var min = arr[0];
  for (var i = 1; i < arr.length; i++) {
    if (arr[i] < min) {
      min = arr[i];
    }
  }
  return min;
}
```

Alternatively, you could use a library like Lodash that provides an implementation of `min()`:

```javascript
const _ = require('lodash');
console.log(_.min([2,35,67,3])); // prints 2
```

Related benchmarks:

Array.sort() vs Math.min 4 elements (version: 0)

Array.sort() vs Math.min 4 elements

Comparing performance of: Array.sort vs Math.min

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.sort

Math.min

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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