Benchmark: Ramda sort vs native sort. Working

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://unpkg.com/ramda@0.23.0/dist/ramda.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Ramda
R.sort(diff, bigArray);
Native
bigArray.sort(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 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Ramda	9336.3 Ops/sec
Native	91233.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its various components.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark is comparing the performance of two sorting algorithms: Ramda's `R.sort()` function and JavaScript's built-in `Array.prototype.sort()` method, also known as the native sort. The benchmark generates a large array of 1000 random integers between 0 and 200 using the `Math.random()` function.

**Options Compared:**

* **Ramda's R.sort()**: Ramda is a functional programming library for JavaScript that provides various useful functions for data processing and manipulation. In this case, the `R.sort()` function sorts an array in ascending order based on a custom comparison function (`diff`).
	+ Pros:
		- Can handle complex sorting scenarios with custom comparison logic.
		- Provides a predictable and deterministic sorting result.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower than native sort for simple sorting tasks.
		- Requires an additional library dependency (Ramda).
* **Native Sort**: The built-in `Array.prototype.sort()` method sorts an array in ascending order based on the string values of its elements, which are obtained by converting each element to a string using the `toString()` method. If no comparison function is provided, it uses the default sorting order.
	+ Pros:
		- Fast and efficient for simple sorting tasks.
		- Built-in functionality eliminates the need for additional library dependencies.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slower than Ramda's R.sort() for complex sorting scenarios or large datasets.
		- May not produce predictable results if custom comparison logic is required.

**Other Considerations:**

* **Performance**: The benchmark measures the number of executions per second, which indicates how many elements can be sorted in a given time frame. Native sort may perform better for small arrays and simple sorting tasks, while Ramda's R.sort() may outperform native sort for larger arrays or more complex sorting scenarios.
* **Predictability**: Ramda's R.sort() provides predictable results since the comparison function is deterministic, whereas native sort relies on the default string values of its elements, which can lead to unpredictable results.

**Library and Special JS Features:**

* **Ramda**: As mentioned earlier, Ramda is a functional programming library that provides various useful functions for data processing and manipulation. In this case, it's used for sorting an array.
* **No special JS features or syntax are mentioned in the benchmark definition**, so no additional explanations are required.

**Alternatives:**

* Other sorting algorithms can be implemented using JavaScript, such as Quicksort, Mergesort, or Heapsort. However, these algorithms may not be optimized for performance and may require more code to implement.
* For more advanced sorting scenarios, libraries like Lodash or Sorta can be used, which provide a wider range of sorting options and customizable comparison functions.

In summary, the benchmark compares two sorting algorithms: Ramda's R.sort() function and JavaScript's built-in `Array.prototype.sort()` method. The results indicate that native sort may perform better for simple sorting tasks, while Ramda's R.sort() can outperform native sort for larger arrays or more complex sorting scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

Ramda sort vs native sort. Working (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Ramda vs Native

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

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):