Benchmark: reverse vs sort - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var array = Array.from({ length: 10000 }, () => Math.floor(Math.random() * 10000))

Tests:

sort
array.forEach(n => { const repeat = Math.sqrt(n); const result = [[], []]; for (let i = 1; i <= repeat; i++) { if(n % i === 0) { result.push(i); if (i !== repeat) result.push(n / i); } } result.sort((a, b) => a - b) } )
reverse
array.forEach(n => { const repeat = Math.sqrt(n); const result = [[], []]; for (let i = 1; i < repeat; i++) { if(n % i === 0) { result[0].push(i); result[1].push(n / i); } } if (Number.isInteger(repeat)) result[0].push(repeat) result[1].reverse(); result.flat() } )

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
sort
reverse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
sort	38.9 Ops/sec
reverse	73.0 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 explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for reversing and sorting an array of numbers in JavaScript:

1. **Sort**: uses the built-in `Array.prototype.sort()` method, which sorts the array in place using a stable sorting algorithm (Timsort).
2. **Reverse**: uses a manual approach with nested loops to generate divisors and their corresponding quotients, and then reverses the array.

**Test Case Explanation**

For each test case, here's what's being tested:

* The first test case ("sort") creates an array of 10,000 random numbers using `Array.from()`. It then defines a script that uses the `forEach()` method to iterate over the array. Inside the loop:
	+ It calculates the square root of each number and stores it in `repeat`.
	+ It initializes two empty arrays (`result[0]` and `result[1]`) to store divisors and quotients, respectively.
	+ The outer loop iterates from 1 to `repeat`, checking if `n` is divisible by `i`. If so, it pushes both `i` and the quotient `n / i` into their respective arrays. After the loop, it sorts the combined array using `Array.prototype.sort()`.
* The second test case ("reverse") is similar to the first one, but with a slight difference:
	+ It calculates the square root of each number and stores it in `repeat`, just like the first test case.
	+ However, instead of pushing divisors and quotients into separate arrays, it pushes only the quotients into an array (`result[1]`). Then, it reverses this array using the `reverse()` method. Finally, it flattens the resulting array using the `flat()` method.

**Library and Special Features**

* Neither test case uses any libraries or external dependencies.
* There are no special features or syntax used in either benchmark. However, note that modern JavaScript engines may optimize certain operations or use specific features (like parallel processing) under the hood, which might affect the results of this benchmark.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare the performance of:

1. **Built-in sorting**: The `Array.prototype.sort()` method, which is implemented in the browser's engine.
2. **Manual reversal and flattening**: A custom approach using nested loops to generate divisors and quotients, and then reversing and flattening the array.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Built-in sorting**:
	+ Pros: usually fast and efficient, stable sorting algorithm (Timsort), and easy to implement.
	+ Cons: may not be optimized for certain data types or edge cases.
* **Manual reversal and flattening**:
	+ Pros: can be faster in some cases (e.g., when dealing with small arrays or specific data structures), allows for more control over the implementation.
	+ Cons: can be slower for large datasets, requires careful handling of edge cases, and is generally less efficient.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to explore alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* Using `Array.prototype.map()` instead of `forEach()`.
* Implementing the sorting algorithm from scratch (e.g., using merge sort or quicksort).
* Utilizing specialized libraries like Lodash or Ramda for array manipulation.
* Experimenting with parallel processing techniques (if supported by your browser engine).

Keep in mind that these alternatives might change the benchmark's behavior and results.

Related benchmarks:

reverse vs sort (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: sort vs reverse

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

sort

reverse

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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