Benchmark: toSorted vs slice&sort vs es6 [...]&sort

Script Preparation code:


var arr = Array.from({ lenght: 1000 }).map((_, i) => Math.floor(Math.random() * 10000));
var sortedArr = null;

Tests:

toSorted
sortedArr = arr.toSorted()
slice&sort
sortedArr = arr.slice().sort()
es6 [...]&sort
sortedArr = [...arr].sort()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toSorted
slice&sort
es6 [...]&sort

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toSorted	11397253.0 Ops/sec
slice&sort	11052179.0 Ops/sec
es6 [...]&sort	10655581.0 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 Purpose**

The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of three different approaches for sorting an array in JavaScript: `toSorted`, `slice&sort`, and `es6 [...]&sort`.

**Options Compared**

The three options compared are:

1. **`toSorted`**: This option uses a library function named `toSorted` that sorts the array in place.
2. **`slice&sort`**: This option uses the built-in `Array.prototype.slice()` method to create a copy of the original array and then sorts it using the `Array.prototype.sort()` method.
3. **`es6 [...]&sort`**: This option uses the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array from the original array and then sorts it using the `Array.prototype.sort()` method.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`toSorted`**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and optimized for sorting arrays.
	* Cons: Requires a separate library function, which may introduce additional overhead.
2. **`slice&sort`**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand and implement, no additional libraries required.
	* Cons: Creates a copy of the original array, which can lead to increased memory usage and slower performance for large datasets.
3. **`es6 [...]&sort`**:
	* Pros: Modern syntax, easy to read and maintain, and does not create a copy of the original array.
	* Cons: May be less familiar to older developers or those who prefer traditional JavaScript syntax.

**Library Used**

The `toSorted` option uses a custom library function that is not part of the standard JavaScript library. The exact implementation of this function is not provided in the benchmark definition, but it likely uses a sorting algorithm such as quicksort or mergesort.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

None mentioned in this specific benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to sort arrays in JavaScript, here are some other alternatives:

* **`Array.prototype.sort()`**: This is the most common and widely supported method for sorting arrays. It uses a sorting algorithm such as quicksort or mergesort.
* **`lodash.sort()`**: If you're using Lodash, you can use its `sort()` function to sort arrays. However, this would require importing an additional library.
* **`PonyFill.sort()`**: PonyFill is a polyfill for the `Array.prototype.sort()` method that provides better performance and support for older browsers.

Keep in mind that these alternatives have different trade-offs in terms of performance, memory usage, and syntax.

Related benchmarks:

toSorted vs slice&sort vs es6 [...]&sort (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toSorted vs slice&sort vs es6 [...]&sort

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

toSorted

slice&sort

es6 [...]&sort

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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