Benchmark: Ramda sort vs JS native toSort

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var diff = (a, b) => (a - b);
var bigArray = (new Array(1000)).fill(null).map(() => Math.floor(Math.random() * 200) );

Tests:

Ramda
R.sort(diff, bigArray)
Native
bigArray.toSorted(diff)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ramda
Native

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/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Ramda	8052.8 Ops/sec
Native	3677.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the explanation into smaller sections to make it easier to understand.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches for sorting large arrays: Ramda's `R.sort` function and JavaScript's native `toSorted` method.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Ramda's `R.sort`**: This is a functional programming library that provides a robust and efficient way to sort arrays.
2. **JavaScript's native `toSorted` method**: This is the built-in sorting algorithm in JavaScript, which uses a modified merge sort algorithm.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Ramda's `R.sort`**:
	+ Pros:
		- More predictable and efficient than the native sorting algorithm.
		- Supports various sorting algorithms (e.g., stable, unstable, custom).
		- Returns a new sorted array without modifying the original one.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an external library (Ramda) to be included in the benchmark setup.
		- May have a slightly higher overhead due to the additional indirection.
* **JavaScript's native `toSorted` method**:
	+ Pros:
		- Built-in, no extra dependencies needed.
		- Fast and efficient for small to medium-sized arrays.
		- Supports sorting in ascending and descending order.
	+ Cons:
		- Less predictable and less stable than Ramda's sorting algorithm.
		- Modifies the original array, which may be undesirable in some cases.

**Library: Ramda**

Ramda is a popular functional programming library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of utility functions, including `sort`. It allows developers to write concise and expressive code without sacrificing performance. In this benchmark, Ramda's `R.sort` function is used to sort the large array in a predictable and efficient manner.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When evaluating the performance of these two approaches, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Array size: The larger the array, the more significant the impact of sorting algorithms.
* Data distribution: If the data is uniformly distributed, the sorting algorithm may be less efficient. Otherwise, it can be more efficient.
* Cache locality: Some sorting algorithms are optimized for cache locality, which can significantly impact performance.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to Ramda's `R.sort` and JavaScript's native `toSorted` method include:

* Other functional programming libraries (e.g., Lodash, Immutable.js)
* Hybrid approaches that combine elements of both functional and imperative programming styles
* Custom sorting algorithms implemented in C++ or other low-level languages for optimal performance

Related benchmarks:

Ramda sort vs JS native toSort (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Ramda vs Native

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Ramda

Native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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