Benchmark: slice sort vs spread sort vs sort

Script Preparation code:

var a=Array.from({length:100},()=>Math.random())

Tests:

slice sort
a.slice().sort();
spread sort
[...a].sort()
sort
a.sort()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
slice sort
spread sort
sort

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.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, comparing the performance of different approaches to sorting arrays. The benchmark you provided tests three sorting methods: `slice sort`, `spread sort`, and a traditional `sort` method.

**Test Case Breakdown**

The test cases are defined in the "Individual test cases" section:

1. **Slice Sort**: `a.slice().sort()`
	* This approach creates a new array by slicing the original array (`a`) and then sorts it using the built-in `sort()` method.
2. **Spread Sort**: `[...a].sort()`
	* This approach uses the spread operator (`[...]`) to create a new array from the elements of the original array (`a`) and then sorts it using the built-in `sort()` method.
3. **Traditional Sort**: `a.sort()`
	* This approach directly sorts the original array (`a`) using the built-in `sort()` method.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three sorting methods on an array of 100 random elements.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Slice Sort**:
	* Pros: Creates a new, sorted array without modifying the original array.
	* Cons: Requires creating an additional array, which can be memory-intensive for large datasets.
2. **Spread Sort**:
	* Pros: Uses a modern syntax (spread operator) and is concise.
	* Cons: Also creates an additional array, similar to slice sort.
3. **Traditional Sort**:
	* Pros: Only modifies the original array, making it more efficient in terms of memory usage.
	* Cons: Modifies the original array, which may be undesirable for some use cases.

**Library and Syntax Considerations**

None of the test cases explicitly use a library or any special JavaScript features. However, it's worth noting that `slice()` and `sort()` are built-in methods in JavaScript, while the spread operator (`[...]`) is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test alternative sorting algorithms, such as:

* **Merge Sort**: A divide-and-conquer algorithm that splits the array into smaller subarrays and merges them recursively.
* **Quick Sort**: Another divide-and-conquer algorithm that selects a pivot element, partitions the array around it, and recursively sorts the subarrays.

These alternatives would require modifying the benchmark definition to include additional test cases. MeasureThat.net allows users to create custom benchmarks using various scripting languages, so you can experiment with different algorithms and compare their performance on your own microbenchmarks.

Related benchmarks:

slice sort vs spread sort vs sort (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: slice sort vs spread sort vs sort

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

slice sort

spread sort

sort

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):