Benchmark: Array.sort vs Math.min 1

Script Preparation code:


var arr = Array.from({length: 100000}).fill(Math.random())

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 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.1.2 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.sort	58.8 Ops/sec
Math min and max	466.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON benchmark definition and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The website is testing two different approaches to find the minimum value in an array: `Array.sort()` vs `Math.min()`. The benchmark is designed to measure which approach is faster.

**Options Compared**

There are only two options compared:

1. **Array.sort()**: This method sorts the entire array in ascending order and returns a new sorted array. In this case, the minimum value is assumed to be the first element of the sorted array.
2. **Math.min()**: This built-in JavaScript function takes an array (or multiple arrays) as an argument and returns the smallest of their values.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Array.sort()**:
	+ Pros: Easy to implement, works with any data type that can be compared (numbers, strings, etc.).
	+ Cons: Sorts the entire array, which may not be necessary if only the minimum value is needed. Can be slower for large arrays due to the overhead of sorting.
* **Math.min()**:
	+ Pros: Specifically designed for finding the minimum value in an array, which makes it more efficient than Array.sort().
	+ Cons: Only works with numeric values (numbers and integers). If the array contains non-numeric values, Math.min() will return NaN (Not a Number).

**Other Considerations**

* In modern JavaScript engines, **Array.prototype.reduce()`** could be used instead of `Math.min()`, as it provides more flexibility and can handle arrays with multiple minimum values.
* The benchmark does not consider the use of **setImmediate()` or **setTimeout()`**, which can be used to optimize performance-critical code.

**Library and Syntax**

There are no libraries being used in this benchmark. However, if you're interested in using a library for similar benchmarks, some popular options include:

* Lodash: Provides various utility functions, including `Math.min()`.
* Array.prototype.reduce(): A built-in JavaScript method that can be used to find the minimum value in an array.

Now, let's talk about special JS features or syntax. There are none mentioned in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

If you want to create a similar benchmark, here are some alternatives:

* Compare `Array.prototype.map()` vs `forEach()`
* Compare `String.prototype.split()` vs `Regex.exec()`
* Compare `Array.prototype.find()` vs `filter()`

Related benchmarks:

Array.sort vs Math.min 1 (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):