Benchmark: sort alphanum - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function getSortedNumericalBpKeys(keys) {
    return keys
        .map(Number)
        .filter(Boolean)
        .sort((a, b) => b - a)
        .map(String);
}

const { compare } = new Intl.Collator(undefined, {numeric: true, sensitivity: 'base'});

function getSortedNumericalBpKeysCollator(keys) {
    return keys.sort(compare);
}

Tests:

naive
getSortedNumericalBpKeys(['1000', '11', '111', '99']);
with collator
getSortedNumericalBpKeysCollator(['1000', '11', '111', '99']);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
naive
with collator

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.

Let's break down the benchmark and its test cases to understand what is being tested.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two approaches for sorting numerical keys in an array: a naive approach without using any library, and an approach using the `Intl.Collator` API from the JavaScript standard library.

**Naive Approach**

The naive approach uses the built-in `Array.prototype.sort()` method to sort the numerical keys. The `sort()` method compares two values at a time and swaps them if they are in the wrong order. In this case, the comparison function is `(a, b) => b - a`, which sorts the numbers in descending order.

**Approach using Intl.Collator API**

The second approach uses the `Intl.Collator` API to sort the numerical keys. The `Collator` object provides a way to compare strings according to specific rules and options. In this case, the `numeric: true` option tells the collator to compare numbers as numbers, rather than as strings. The `sensitivity: 'base'` option specifies that the sorting should be done in a base-level language, which is suitable for most numerical comparisons.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* **Naive Approach**
	+ Pros:
		- Simple to implement
		- Fast execution (no overhead from library calls)
	+ Cons:
		- May not work correctly for all edge cases (e.g., comparing negative numbers, decimal points)
		- May not be as efficient as the `Intl.Collator` API approach for large datasets
* **Approach using Intl.Collator API**
	+ Pros:
		- Robust and reliable for most numerical comparisons
		- Can handle edge cases (e.g., negative numbers, decimal points) correctly
	+ Cons:
		- May have slower execution compared to the naive approach due to library overhead
		- Requires JavaScript 5.1 or later (not all browsers support it)

**Library and its purpose**

The `Intl.Collator` API is a part of the JavaScript standard library, specifically introduced in ECMAScript 2017. It provides a way to compare strings according to specific rules and options, which can be useful for sorting and comparing numerical data.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond what is already mentioned (e.g., `Array.prototype.sort()`). However, the use of `Number` as a function to convert strings to numbers might be worth noting, but it's not specific to any particular feature.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to implement a sorting algorithm without using the `Intl.Collator` API or built-in `sort()` method, some alternative approaches include:

* Using a custom implementation of a sorting algorithm (e.g., merge sort, quick sort)
* Using a third-party library that provides a sorting function
* Implementing a manual comparison function for numerical keys

Related benchmarks:

sort alphanum (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: naive vs with collator

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

naive

with collator

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):