Benchmark: Javascript Array sorting performance with sort() and reduce()

HTML Preparation code:

<div id='min-data'></div>

Tests:

with reduce()
const div = document.getElementById('min-data'); const newArray = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100000; i++){ const num = Math.floor(Math.random() * 100000); newArray.push(num); } newArray.reduce((a, b) => (a < b ? a : b), []); div.innerHTML = newArray[0].toString();
with sort()
const div = document.getElementById('min-data'); const newArray = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100000; i++){ const num = Math.floor(Math.random() * 100000); newArray.push(num); } newArray.sort((a, b) => a - b); div.innerHTML = newArray[0].toString();

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

with reduce()

55/s

with sort()

30/s

Fastest: with reduce() (1.8x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ with reduce(): 55 ops/sec
• with sort(): 30 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
with reduce()
with sort()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:134.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/134.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 134 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

with sort()

157/s

with reduce()

104/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ with sort()	157 Ops/sec
with reduce()	104 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 data for the JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark tests the performance of two methods to sort an array: `reduce()` and `sort()`. The script preparation code is empty, which means that the test cases are self-contained and don't rely on any external dependencies.

The HTML preparation code includes a `<div>` element with an ID of "min-data", which will be used to display the result of the benchmark. The purpose of this HTML element is not directly related to the benchmark itself but rather serves as a container for displaying the output.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **with reduce()**
This test case creates an array with 100,000 random numbers using a `for` loop and then uses the `reduce()` method to sort the array. The sorted result is displayed on the HTML page by setting the innerHTML of the `<div>` element.

2. **with sort()**
This test case creates an array with 100,000 random numbers using a `for` loop and then uses the `sort()` method with a custom comparison function to sort the array. The sorted result is displayed on the HTML page by setting the innerHTML of the `<div>` element.

**Comparison of Options**

The two options being compared are:

* `reduce()`: A higher-order function that applies a transformation to each element in an array and reduces it to a single output value.
* `sort()`: A built-in method that sorts the elements of an array in place, returning the sorted array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **with reduce()**
	* Pros:
		+ More functional programming style
		+ Can be used for more complex sorting tasks
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower than `sort()` due to the overhead of a higher-order function
		+ Requires a custom comparison function, which can be error-prone
2. **with sort()**
	* Pros:
		+ Faster execution time compared to `reduce()`
		+ Built-in method with well-known behavior
	* Cons:
		+ Less flexible than `reduce()` for more complex sorting tasks

**Library and Purpose**

None of the test cases rely on any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that the `sort()` method uses a comparison function internally, which is provided by the browser.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmark test cases.

**Other Considerations**

* **Warm-up**: The tests may not be suitable for measuring cold-start performance, as they require a few iterations to warm up the JavaScript engine.
* **Garbage Collection**: The tests may trigger garbage collection during execution, which can impact performance. To mitigate this, it's recommended to run these tests in an environment with minimal garbage collection overhead.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for measuring array sorting performance could include:

* Using a library like Lodash or Ramda, which provide more functional programming-friendly sorting functions.
* Using a benchmarking framework that provides built-in support for microbenchmarks, such as Benchmark.js or Microbenchmark.
* Using a test runner that supports parallel execution of multiple tests, allowing for faster measurement of performance differences.

Javascript Array sorting performance with sort() and reduce() (version: 0)

Javascript Array sorting performance with sort() and reduce()

Comparing performance of: `with reduce() vs with sort()`

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

with reduce()

with sort()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Javascript Array sorting performance with sort() and reduce() (version: 0)

Javascript Array sorting performance with sort() and reduce()

Comparing performance of: with reduce() vs with sort()

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

with reduce()

with sort()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `with reduce() vs with sort()`