Benchmark: Math.min vs Array.sort[0]

Script Preparation code:

var massiveArray = new Array(100000).fill().map(e => Math.random())

Tests:

Math.min
Math.min(...massiveArray)
Array.sort[0]
massiveArray.sort()[0]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.min
Array.sort[0]

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:139.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/139.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 139 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.min	1815.1 Ops/sec
Array.sort[0]	78.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and some pros/cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**
The test compares two approaches: `Math.min` and `Array.sort[0]`. The goal is to determine which method is faster for large arrays. This benchmark is often referred to as a "microbenchmark" because it's designed to measure the performance difference between small, well-defined code snippets.

**Script Preparation Code**
The script prepares a massive array of 100,000 random numbers using the `new Array(100000).fill().map(e => Math.random())` syntax. This creates an array with a large number of elements, which will be used to test the performance of both `Math.min` and `Array.sort[0]`.

**Html Preparation Code**
This field is empty, which means no HTML code is required for this benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

1. **"Math.min(...massiveArray)"**: This test case measures the execution time of the `Math.min` function applied to the entire massive array.
2. **"massiveArray.sort()[0]"**: This test case measures the execution time of accessing the first element of an already sorted massive array.

**Library/Functionality**

There are no external libraries used in this benchmark. The functions being tested (`Math.min` and `Array.sort[0]`) are built-in JavaScript methods.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**
The use of the spread operator (`...`) in the script preparation code is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It allows for creating an array with a specific number of elements, filled with a repeated value. This syntax is not essential to understanding the benchmark, but it's worth noting that older browsers might not support this feature.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`Math.min(...massiveArray)`**:
	* Pros: Simple, easy to understand, and widely supported.
	* Cons: Can be slower for large arrays due to the overhead of creating an array and then finding its minimum value.
2. **`massiveArray.sort()[0]`**:
	* Pros: Only sorts the array once and then accesses the first element, which can be faster for large arrays.
	* Cons: Requires sorting the entire array, which can be slower than just finding the minimum value.

**Other Alternatives**

If `Math.min` is not suitable or optimal for your use case, other alternatives might include:

1. **Using a library like Lodash**: The `_minBy` function in Lodash can find the minimum element of an array without sorting it entirely.
2. **Implementing a custom min-finding algorithm**: Depending on your specific requirements and performance constraints, you might need to implement a custom algorithm for finding the minimum value in the array.

Keep in mind that this benchmark is designed to compare two simple approaches, but real-world scenarios might require more complex solutions or optimizations.

Related benchmarks:

Math.min vs Array.sort[0] (version: 0)

Test whether Math.min or Array.sort[0] is faster for large number arrays

Comparing performance of: Math.min vs Array.sort[0]

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.min

Array.sort[0]

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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