Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Array Sorting Methods
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Random Swap vs Random to End vs Random to Second
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var array = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,270,271,272,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280]
Tests:
Random Swap
var copy = array.splice(0); for(var i = 0; i < copy.length; i++){ var randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * copy.length); var temp = copy[i]; copy[i] = copy[randomIndex]; copy[randomIndex] = temp; } return copy;
Random to End
var copy = array.splice(0); for(var i = 0; i < copy.length; i++){ var randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * (copy.length - i)); copy.push(copy[randomIndex]); copy.splice(randomIndex, 1); } return copy;
Random to Second
var copy = array.splice(0); var shuffled = []; var length = copy.length; for(var i = 0; i < length; i++){ var randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * (length - i)); shuffled[i] = copy[randomIndex]; copy.splice(randomIndex, 1); } return shuffled;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Random Swap
Random to End
Random to Second
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark measures the performance of three different methods for shuffling an array: Random Swap, Random to End, and Random to Second. The goal is to determine which method is the fastest. **Shuffling Methods** 1. **Random Swap**: This method creates a copy of the original array and then repeatedly swaps two elements in the copy using a random index. The shuffled array is returned at the end. 2. **Random to End**: This method creates a copy of the original array and then pushes each element from the beginning to the end of the copy, effectively shuffling the array. After each push, an element is removed from the front of the copy using `splice`. 3. **Random to Second**: This method is similar to Random Swap, but instead of swapping two elements in place, it creates a new shuffled array by pushing each element from the beginning to the end of the original array. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares the performance of these three shuffling methods on an array of 250 elements. The execution time for each method is measured and reported as `ExecutionsPerSecond`. **Pros and Cons** * **Random Swap**: This method has a time complexity of O(n^2) due to the repeated swapping operations. However, it's simple to implement and doesn't require extra memory. * **Random to End**: This method has a time complexity of O(n log n) because it uses `splice` to remove elements from the front of the array. While it's more efficient than Random Swap, it requires additional memory allocation. * **Random to Second**: This method is similar to Random Swap but uses a different approach to shuffle the array. It has a time complexity of O(n^2) as well. **Other Considerations** * The benchmark doesn't account for the order of operations or any potential side effects of shuffling an array. * The use of `splice` in the Random to End method can be problematic if the original array is modified elsewhere in the code. **Alternatives** If you need to shuffle an array, other methods like Fisher-Yates shuffle or Knuth shuffle might be more efficient and less prone to errors. Additionally, using a library like Lodash's `shuffle` function can simplify the implementation and provide better performance. I hope this explanation helps!
Related benchmarks:
Sorting speed comparison
Array.sort vs Math.min+Math.max (LONG ARRAYS)
unique elements in array using filter - large array
Sort method comparisons (quicksort, for loop, Arra.prototype.sort)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?