Benchmark: math.min/max vs sort

Script Preparation code:

var array = Array(100000).fill(0).map(v => parseInt(Math.random() * (1000000 - 0) + 0))

Tests:

Math.min
Math.min(...array)
Math.max
Math.max(...array)
sort (asc)
array.sort((a, b) => a - b)
sort (desc)
array.sort((a, b) => b - a)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.min
Math.max
sort (asc)
sort (desc)

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) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.min	6464.9 Ops/sec
Math.max	6508.1 Ops/sec
sort (asc)	796.6 Ops/sec
sort (desc)	795.2 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches to find the minimum or maximum value in an array:

1. Using the `Math.min()` function
2. Using the `Math.max()` function
3. Sorting the array and then finding the first element (ascending) or last element (descending)

**Options Compared**

* `Math.min()` vs `Math.max()`: This comparison tests the performance of finding the smallest and largest values in an array using built-in JavaScript functions.
	+ Pros: Easy to implement, fast, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: May not be optimized for large arrays or specific use cases (e.g., finding the median).
* Sorting vs native min/max functions: This comparison tests the performance of sorting the entire array before finding the minimum or maximum value compared to using built-in functions.
	+ Pros: Can be useful in certain scenarios, like when you need to perform additional operations on the sorted data.
	+ Cons: Sorts the entire array, which can be slower for large arrays and may not be necessary if you only need to find a single minimum or maximum value.

**Library Used**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided benchmark. However, it's likely that the `Array.prototype` methods (e.g., `fill()`, `map()`) are used as part of the benchmark.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses the `Math.random()` function to generate random numbers for creating an array with random values. This is a standard JavaScript feature and not specific to any particular version or syntax.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code creates an array of 100,000 elements, each initialized with a random integer value between 0 and 1,000,000.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses Chrome 123 as the browser, but it's likely that other browsers would have similar performance characteristics.
* The test is run on a desktop platform, which may not be representative of mobile or web-based scenarios where performance differences might occur.
* The `ExecutionsPerSecond` value indicates how many times each operation is executed per second, providing an idea of the relative performance of each approach.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to finding the minimum or maximum value in an array include:

* Using a custom implementation, such as a binary search algorithm, which can be more efficient for large arrays.
* Using parallel processing or multi-threading to take advantage of multiple CPU cores.
* Implementing a hybrid approach that combines the benefits of built-in functions with custom optimizations.

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches will depend on specific use cases and hardware configurations.

Related benchmarks:

math.min/max vs sort (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.min vs Math.max vs sort (asc) vs sort (desc)

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.min

Math.max

sort (asc)

sort (desc)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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