Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Array sort vs Math.Min
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
sort vs math min
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
sort
const findSmallestInt = (args) => args.sort((a, b) => a - b)[0]; findSmallestInt([78,56,232,412,228, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600, 2700, 2800, 2900, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3400, 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000, 4100, 4200, 4300, 4400, 4500, 4600, 4700, 4800, 4900, 5000, 5100, 5200, 5300, 5400, 5500, 5600, 5700, 5800, 5900, 6000, 6100, 6200, 6300, 6400, 6500, 6600, 6700, 6800, 6900, 7000, 7100, 7200, 7300, 7400, 7500, 7600, 7700, 7800, 7900, 8000, 8100, 8200, 8300, 8400, 8500, 8600, 8700, 8800, 8900, 9000, 9100, 9200, 9300, 9400, 9500, 9600, 9700, 9800, 9900, 10000, 10100, 10200, 10300, 10400, 10500, 10600, 10700, 10800, 10900, 11000, 11100, 11200, 11300, 11400, 11500, 11600, 11700, 11800, 11900, 12000, 12100, 12200, 12300, 12400, 12500, 12600, 12700, 12800, 12900, 13000])
math min
const findSmallestInt = (args) => Math.min(...args); findSmallestInt([78,56,232,412,228, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600, 2700, 2800, 2900, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3400, 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000, 4100, 4200, 4300, 4400, 4500, 4600, 4700, 4800, 4900, 5000, 5100, 5200, 5300, 5400, 5500, 5600, 5700, 5800, 5900, 6000, 6100, 6200, 6300, 6400, 6500, 6600, 6700, 6800, 6900, 7000, 7100, 7200, 7300, 7400, 7500, 7600, 7700, 7800, 7900, 8000, 8100, 8200, 8300, 8400, 8500, 8600, 8700, 8800, 8900, 9000, 9100, 9200, 9300, 9400, 9500, 9600, 9700, 9800, 9900, 10000, 10100, 10200, 10300, 10400, 10500, 10600, 10700, 10800, 10900, 11000, 11100, 11200, 11300, 11400, 11500, 11600, 11700, 11800, 11900, 12000, 12100, 12200, 12300, 12400, 12500, 12600, 12700, 12800, 12900, 13000])
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
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):
Let's break down what is being tested in the provided benchmark. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is not fully specified, but it appears to be comparing two approaches: 1. Using the `Array.prototype.sort()` method to find the smallest element in an array. 2. Using the `Math.min()` function with the spread operator (`...`) to achieve the same result. **Options Compared** Two options are being compared: * Option 1: `Array.prototype.sort()` * Option 2: `Math.min()` **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** **Option 1: Array.prototype.sort()** Pros: * Widely supported across different browsers and platforms. * Easy to understand and implement. Cons: * Has a time complexity of O(n log n), which can be slow for large arrays. * Mutates the original array, which may not be desirable in some cases. **Option 2: Math.min()** Pros: * Fast and efficient, with a time complexity of O(n). * Does not mutate the original array. Cons: * May not work as expected if the input array contains non-numeric values. * Requires modern JavaScript versions (ECMAScript 2015+). **Library Used** None, but `Math.min()` is a built-in function in JavaScript. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** Not applicable in this benchmark. **Other Considerations** When choosing between these two options, consider the size of the input array and the performance requirements of your application. If the array is small to medium-sized, `Array.prototype.sort()` might be sufficient. However, if you're working with large arrays or need the best possible performance, `Math.min()` is likely a better choice. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for finding the smallest element in an array include: * Using the `reduce()` method: `arr.reduce((a, b) => a < b ? a : b)` * Using a custom function: `function findSmallest(arr) { return arr[0]; }` * Using a library like Lodash (if you're using it) Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the two options being compared in this benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
arr.sort() vs. Math.min()
Array.sort() vs Math.min 4 elements
Array.sort() vs Math.min / Math.max 4 elements v2
.sort() vs Math.min - 4 elements
array sort vs math min
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?