Efficient way to insert a number into a sorted array of numbers?

Question

Simple (Demo):

function sortedIndex(array, value) {
    var low = 0,
        high = array.length;

    while (low < high) {
        var mid = (low + high) >>> 1;
        if (array[mid] < value) low = mid + 1;
        else high = mid;
    }
    return low;
}

Just as a single data point, for kicks I tested this out inserting 1000 random elements into an array of 100,000 pre-sorted numbers using the two methods using Chrome on Windows 7:

First Method:
~54 milliseconds
Second Method:
~57 seconds

So, at least on this setup, the native method doesn't make up for it. This is true even for small data sets, inserting 100 elements into an array of 1000:

First Method:
1 milliseconds
Second Method:
34 milliseconds

Very good and remarkable question with a very interesting discussion! I also was using the Array.sort() function after pushing a single element in an array with some thousands of objects.

I had to extend your locationOf function for my purpose because of having complex objects and therefore the need for a compare function like in Array.sort():

function locationOf(element, array, comparer, start, end) {
    if (array.length === 0)
        return -1;

    start = start || 0;
    end = end || array.length;
    var pivot = (start + end) >> 1;  // should be faster than dividing by 2

    var c = comparer(element, array[pivot]);
    if (end - start <= 1) return c == -1 ? pivot - 1 : pivot;

    switch (c) {
        case -1: return locationOf(element, array, comparer, start, pivot);
        case 0: return pivot;
        case 1: return locationOf(element, array, comparer, pivot, end);
    };
};

// sample for objects like {lastName: 'Miller', ...}
var patientCompare = function (a, b) {
    if (a.lastName < b.lastName) return -1;
    if (a.lastName > b.lastName) return 1;
    return 0;
};

There's a bug in your code. It should read:

function locationOf(element, array, start, end) {
  start = start || 0;
  end = end || array.length;
  var pivot = parseInt(start + (end - start) / 2, 10);
  if (array[pivot] === element) return pivot;
  if (end - start <= 1)
    return array[pivot] > element ? pivot - 1 : pivot;
  if (array[pivot] < element) {
    return locationOf(element, array, pivot, end);
  } else {
    return locationOf(element, array, start, pivot);
  }
}

Without this fix the code will never be able to insert an element at the beginning of the array.

I know this is an old question that has an answer already, and there are a number of other decent answers. I see some answers that propose that you can solve this problem by looking up the correct insertion index in O(log n) - you can, but you can't insert in that time, because the array needs to be partially copied out to make space.

Bottom line: If you really need O(log n) inserts and deletes into a sorted array, you need a different data structure - not an array. You should use a B-Tree. The performance gains you will get from using a B-Tree for a large data set, will dwarf any of the improvements offered here.

If you must use an array. I offer the following code, based on insertion sort, which works, if and only if the array is already sorted. This is useful for the case when you need to resort after every insert:

function addAndSort(arr, val) {
    arr.push(val);
    for (i = arr.length - 1; i > 0 && arr[i] < arr[i-1]; i--) {
        var tmp = arr[i];
        arr[i] = arr[i-1];
        arr[i-1] = tmp;
    }
    return arr;
}

It should operate in O(n), which I think is the best you can do. Would be nicer if js supported multiple assignment. here's an example to play with:

Update:

this might be faster:

function addAndSort2(arr, val) {
    arr.push(val);
    i = arr.length - 1;
    item = arr[i];
    while (i > 0 && item < arr[i-1]) {
        arr[i] = arr[i-1];
        i -= 1;
    }
    arr[i] = item;
    return arr;
}

Update 2

@terrymorse pointed out in the comments that javascripts Array.splice method is crazy fast, and it's more than just constant improvement in the time complexity. It seems some linked list magic is being used. It means you still do need a different data structure than a plain array - just that javascript arrays might provide that different data structure natively.

Updated JS Bin link

Your insertion function assumes that the given array is sorted, it searches directly for the location where the new element can be inserted, usually by just looking at a few of the elements in the array.

The general sort function of an array can't take these shortcuts. Obviously it at least has to inspect all elements in the array to see if they are already correctly ordered. This fact alone makes the general sort slower than the insertion function.

A generic sort algorithm is usually on average O(n ⋅ log(n)) and depending on the implementation it might actually be the worst case if the array is already sorted, leading to complexities of O(n²). Directly searching for the insertion position instead has just a complexity of O(log(n)), so it will always be much faster.

Here are a few thoughts: Firstly, if you're genuinely concerned about the runtime of your code, be sure to know what happens when you call the built-in functions! I don't know up from down in javascript, but a quick google of the splice function returned this, which seems to indicate that you're creating a whole new array each call! I don't know if it actually matters, but it is certainly related to efficiency. I see that Breton, in the comments, has already pointed this out, but it certainly holds for whatever array-manipulating function you choose.

Anyways, onto actually solving the problem.

When I read that you wanted to sort, my first thought is to use insertion sort!. It is handy because it runs in linear time on sorted, or nearly-sorted lists. As your arrays will have only 1 element out of order, that counts as nearly-sorted (except for, well, arrays of size 2 or 3 or whatever, but at that point, c'mon). Now, implementing the sort isn't too too bad, but it is a hassle you may not want to deal with, and again, I don't know a thing about javascript and if it will be easy or hard or whatnot. This removes the need for your lookup function, and you just push (as Breton suggested).

Secondly, your "quicksort-esque" lookup function seems to be a binary search algorithm! It is a very nice algorithm, intuitive and fast, but with one catch: it is notoriously difficult to implement correctly. I won't dare say if yours is correct or not (I hope it is, of course! :)), but be wary if you want to use it.

Anyways, summary: using "push" with insertion sort will work in linear time (assuming the rest of the array is sorted), and avoid any messy binary search algorithm requirements. I don't know if this is the best way (underlying implementation of arrays, maybe a crazy built-in function does it better, who knows), but it seems reasonable to me. :) - Agor.