Working on optimization can be fun, repetitive and mostly painful toward the end.
Here is my benchmark for the sort() function. I wanted to compare Array and Vector performances.
This randomizing function has been use as sorting function
test.sort(function(){return Math.floor(Math.random()*3)-1});
Data type
The datatype used for filling the vector/array : int
Loop style
1m = for(n:int=0; n<1000000; ++n) 2.5m = for(n:int=0; n<2500000; ++n)
Benchmark info
Each test was repeated twice
3 = length of 3
5 = length of 5
10 = length of 10
f = fixed
Both Debug Flash Player 11.1.102.55 and Flash Player 11.1.102.55 where used
Windows Quad-Core CPU
Conclusion
Sorting stuff with sort() function is faster within an Array than sorting stuff within a Vector.
Results in ms (1st result, 2nd result) (debug results in grey) (best result is blue)
Array3-1m = (2217,2238) - (3573,3542)
Vector3-1m = (2376,2340) - (3814,3818)
Vector3f-1m = (2361,2372) - (3791,3800)
Array3-2.5m = (5583,5550) - (9134,9186)
Vector3-2.5m = (5917,5890) - (9565,9513)
Vector3f-2.5m = (5980,5851) - (9602,9518)
Array5-1m = (3111,3132) - (5607,5542)
Vector5-1m = (3268,3285) - (5792,5829)
Vector5f-1m = (3266,3273) - (5788,5853)
Array5-2.5m = (7857,7951) - (14141,14166)
Vector5-2.5m = (8163,8257) - (14491,14461)
Vector5f-2.5m = (8211,8212) - (14425,14447)
Array10-1m = (5751,5734) - (11170,11088)
Vector10-1m = (5778,5895) - (11524,11471)
Vector10f-1m = (10525,10575) - (BUSTED)
Array10-2.5m = (14369,14242) - (BUSTED)
Vector10-2.5m = (14513,14683) - (BUSTED)
Vector10f-2.5m = (BUSTED) - (BUSTED)