Benchmark: Array.sort vs Math.min

Script Preparation code:

var v1 = 12345678.12345;
var v2 = 23456789.01234;

var arr = [v2, v1]

Tests:

Array.sort
var a = arr.sort(); var min = a[0];
Math min and max
var min = Math.min([...arr]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.sort
Math min and max

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.sort	8519099.0 Ops/sec
Math min and max	2774038.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark.

**Benchmark Description:**
The benchmark tests two approaches to find the smallest element in an array:

1. Using `Array.prototype.sort()` method
2. Using the built-in `Math.min()` function with spread syntax (`[...arr]`)

**Options Compared:**

* `Array.prototype.sort()`: This approach sorts the entire array in ascending order and returns a new sorted array. The smallest element is then found at the beginning of the array.
* `Math.min(...)`: This approach uses the `min` function from the Math library to find the smallest value among all elements in the array.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Array.prototype.sort()**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be used as a general-purpose sorting algorithm
		+ Can be used for other purposes beyond just finding the smallest element (e.g., sorting an array by multiple criteria)
	* Cons:
		+ Requires sorting the entire array, which can be slow for large arrays
		+ Returns a new sorted array, increasing memory usage
2. **Math.min(...)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and efficient
		+ Does not require sorting the entire array
	* Cons:
		+ Can only find the smallest value among all elements in the array (not the smallest element in an already-sorted subarray)
		+ Requires using the spread syntax (`[...arr]`) to convert the array to an iterable

**Library:**
There is no library used in this benchmark.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**
The test case uses the spread syntax (`[...arr]`) with the `Math.min()` function, which is a relatively modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This syntax allows for more concise and expressive code when working with arrays and iterable objects.

**Other Considerations:**

* The benchmark assumes that the input array contains at least one element.
* The benchmark does not account for edge cases, such as an empty array or an array containing only non-numeric values.

**Alternatives:**
If you need to find the smallest element in an array without using `Array.prototype.sort()` or `Math.min()`, other approaches could include:

* Using a custom loop to iterate through the array and keep track of the smallest value
* Using a more advanced algorithm, such as binary search, to find the smallest element in a sorted subarray
* Using a third-party library that provides an implementation for finding the smallest element in an array

Related benchmarks:

Array.sort vs Math.min (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.sort vs Math min and max

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.sort

Math min and max

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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