Benchmark: Sorting Arrays - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

With spread
const array = Array.from(Array(10000).keys()) const sortedArray = [...array].sort()
With slice
const array = Array.from(Array(10000).keys()) const sortedArray = array.slice().sort()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
With spread
With slice

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:120.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/120.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
With spread	2785.6 Ops/sec
With slice	3208.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its various aspects.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark in question compares two approaches for sorting arrays: using the spread operator (`...`) and slicing (`slice()`) followed by sorting.

**Script Preparation Code**

There is no script preparation code provided, which means that the test cases are self-contained and don't rely on any external scripts or modules.

**Html Preparation Code**

Similarly, there is no html preparation code provided, indicating that the benchmark doesn't require any specific HTML structure or setup.

**Individual Test Cases**

The two test cases are:

1. **With spread**: This test case uses the spread operator (`...`) to create a copy of the original array and then sorts it.
```javascript
const array = Array.from(Array(10000).keys())
const sortedArray = [...array].sort()
```
2. **With slice**: This test case uses the `slice()` method to create a shallow copy of the original array and then sorts it.
```javascript
const array = Array.from(Array(10000).keys())
const sortedArray = array.slice().sort()
```
**Pros and Cons**

* **With spread**:
	+ Pros: Spreads are more readable and expressive, making the code easier to understand. This approach also creates a new array with all elements, which might be beneficial for certain use cases.
	+ Cons: Creating a new array with all elements can be memory-intensive, especially for large datasets. Additionally, the spread operator is a relatively recent feature in JavaScript, so it may not be supported by older browsers or environments.
* **With slice**:
	+ Pros: Slicing creates a shallow copy of the original array, which can be more efficient than creating a new array with all elements using the spread operator. This approach also allows for more fine-grained control over the copying process.
	+ Cons: The `slice()` method returns a shallow copy of the original array, which might not be suitable for all use cases (e.g., if the array contains complex objects). Additionally, slicing can be slower than using the spread operator for large datasets.

**Library Usage**

There is no library usage in these test cases. However, it's worth noting that the `Array.from()` method and the spread operator (`...`) are built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The use of the spread operator (`...`) is a relatively recent feature in JavaScript (introduced in ECMAScript 2015). It allows for creating new arrays with all elements from an existing array. This syntax is also supported by most modern browsers and environments.

**Other Considerations**

When comparing these two approaches, it's essential to consider the specific use case and requirements. For example:

* Memory efficiency: If memory is a concern, using `slice()` might be a better choice.
* Code readability: If code readability is crucial, using the spread operator (`...`) might be more suitable.
* Browser support: As mentioned earlier, older browsers or environments might not support the spread operator.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches for sorting arrays include:

* Using `Array.prototype.sort()` directly on the original array (which can be slower and less memory-efficient than using the spread operator).
* Using a custom sorting algorithm (e.g., merge sort, quicksort) which can provide more control over the sorting process but also adds complexity.
* Using libraries like Lodash or Ramda, which offer various sorting algorithms and utilities.

Related benchmarks:

Sorting Arrays (version: 0)

This benchmark compares sorting arrays based on spreading and slicing

Comparing performance of: With spread vs With slice

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

With spread

With slice

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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