Benchmark: sortBy - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var users = [
  { 'user': 'fred',   'age': 48 },
  { 'user': 'barney', 'age': 36 },
  { 'user': 'fred',   'age': 40 },
  { 'user': 'barney', 'age': 34 }
];

Tests:

native
users.slice().sort((a,b)=>a.user<b.user?-1:a.user>b.user?1:0)
lodash
_.sortBy(users, 'user')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native
lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to test the performance of JavaScript arrays when sorting them in ascending order using two different approaches: native JavaScript and Lodash (a popular utility library for JavaScript).

**Native JavaScript Approach**

The native approach uses the built-in `sort()` method on a sliced copy of the array, which sorts the elements based on a custom comparison function. In this case, the comparison function takes two elements (`a` and `b`) and returns:

* -1 if `a.user` is less than `b.user`
* 1 if `a.user` is greater than `b.user`
* 0 if the values are equal

This approach relies on the browser's built-in sort algorithm, which has a time complexity of O(n log n).

**Lodash Approach**

The Lodash approach uses the `sortBy()` function from the Lodash library, passing the array (`users`) and the sorting key (`'user'`) as arguments. The `sortBy()` function returns a new sorted array.

**Pros and Cons**

**Native JavaScript Approach:**

Pros:

* No external dependencies or library overhead
* Built-in sort algorithm is well-optimized

Cons:

* May rely on the browser's implementation details, which can vary across different browsers
* Limited control over sorting algorithms used (e.g., bubble sort for small arrays)

**Lodash Approach:**

Pros:

* Provides a standardized and tested sorting algorithm (Timsort)
* Allows for easy reuse of existing code

Cons:

* Adds an external dependency (Lodash library)
* May incur overhead due to the additional function call and array creation

**Library and Purpose**

The Lodash library is a popular utility library that provides various functions for tasks like string manipulation, array manipulation, and more. In this benchmark, `sortBy()` is used to sort arrays in ascending order based on a custom key.

**Special JavaScript Feature or Syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any specific JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may have additional features or optimizations for sorting arrays (e.g., using SIMD instructions).

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other sorting algorithms or approaches, here are a few alternatives:

* **Array.prototype.sort()` with a custom comparison function: This approach uses the same built-in sort algorithm as the native JavaScript approach.
* **Quicksort**: A popular sorting algorithm that has an average time complexity of O(n log n).
* **Merge Sort**: Another efficient sorting algorithm with a time complexity of O(n log n).

Keep in mind that each alternative has its own trade-offs and considerations, such as performance, simplicity, and code reuse.

Related benchmarks:

sortBy (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native vs lodash

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native

lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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