Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
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
Go to the latest result
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>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=553720" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
toSorted
11.4M/s
slice&sort
11.1M/s
es6 [...]&sort
10.7M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
toSorted
11,397,253 Ops/sec
slice&sort
11,052,179 Ops/sec
es6 [...]&sort
10,655,581 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
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
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?