Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Sort perf
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
A vs B
Created:
8 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var dates = new Array(1000000); for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) { dates[i] = Math.round((Math.random() * 1000000000000)) }
Tests:
A
dates.sort()
B
dates.sort((a, b) => a === b ? 0 : (a < b ? -1 : 1));
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
A
B
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):
Measuring performance in JavaScript can be complex, and the options compared on MeasureThat.net aim to isolate specific aspects of the language that impact execution speed. In the provided benchmark, we have two test cases: "A" and "B". Both tests measure the sorting of an array using the built-in `sort()` method. However, there's a crucial difference between them: **Test Case A**: This test uses the traditional, arrow-free version of the `sort()` method: ```javascript dates.sort() ``` **Test Case B**: This test uses the arrow function syntax with a custom comparison function: ```javascript dates.sort((a, b) => a === b ? 0 : (a < b ? -1 : 1)) ``` Let's break down the differences between these approaches: ### Test Case A: Traditional `sort()` method Pros: * Easy to read and write * Well-established syntax * No additional dependencies required Cons: * Performance overhead due to method call and potential function lookup in the V8 engine * May not be as efficient as other implementations, especially for large datasets ### Test Case B: Arrow function with custom comparison Pros: * Can lead to better performance due to faster lookups and reduced overhead of method calls * Can take advantage of SIMD instructions (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) for more efficient comparisons Cons: * Requires a slightly different syntax that may be unfamiliar to some developers * May not be as readable or maintainable for complex comparison functions The use of an arrow function with a custom comparison in Test Case B allows MeasureThat.net to isolate the performance impact of using such a syntax. By comparing it to the traditional `sort()` method, the test can determine whether this particular optimization provides a significant speedup. **Library usage** In neither test case is there any explicit library usage mentioned. However, if you were to use external libraries for sorting or other operations, you would need to consider factors like: * Library dependencies and overhead * Potential conflicts with existing JavaScript implementations * Performance characteristics of different libraries **Special JS features or syntax** While not explicitly used in the provided benchmark, MeasureThat.net might be testing other advanced JavaScript features or syntax, such as: * Async/await or Promises for asynchronous operations * WebAssembly support for performance-critical code * Experimental or nightly builds of V8 or other engines These features and syntaxes can impact performance, but their usage is not explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark. **Other alternatives** If you wanted to measure the performance of sorting algorithms using MeasureThat.net, you could add additional test cases that use different sorting approaches, such as: * QuickSort * Merge Sort * Heap Sort * Radix Sort Keep in mind that each sorting algorithm has its own strengths and weaknesses, and some may be more suitable for specific use cases than others.
Related benchmarks:
Array.prototype.sort (objects vs integers)
Array.prototype.sort (utc date property vs epoch date simulation property)
Javascript Sort
Javascript Sort (numbers/strings)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?