Benchmark: Intl.Collator.compare() vs localeCompare() 2

Script Preparation code:

var a = "FOO BAR";
var b = "foo bar";

var collator = new Intl.Collator();

Tests:

localeCompare()
a.localeCompare(b) === 0
Intl.Collator.compare()
collator.compare(a, b) === 0

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
localeCompare()
Intl.Collator.compare()

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 break down the provided benchmarking test.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two string comparison functions in JavaScript:

1. `localeCompare()`: This function compares strings based on the current locale (language and region settings) of the system.
2. `Intl.Collator.compare()`: This function uses the Internationalization API to compare strings based on a specific collation order, which is language- and region-dependent.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. Using the `localeCompare()` method:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and often sufficient for most use cases.
	* Cons: May be slower for certain languages or regions, as it relies on system locale settings, which can be unpredictable.
2. Using the `Intl.Collator.compare()` method:
	* Pros: More accurate and predictable than `localeCompare()`, especially for Unicode-compliant strings.
	* Cons: Less widely supported, may require more configuration (e.g., choosing a specific language or region).

**Special considerations**

The benchmark does not include any special JavaScript features or syntax that are not part of the standard language.

**Other alternatives**

If you need to compare strings in a way that is more accurate and predictable than `localeCompare()`, but still simpler than using `Intl.Collator.compare()`:

1. Use a custom comparison function with a specific collation order.
2. Utilize libraries like ICU (International Components for Unicode) or CLDR (Common Locale Data Repository) to provide more fine-grained control over locale settings.

**Library usage**

The `Intl` library is used in the benchmark, specifically the `Collator` object. The `Intl.Collator` API provides a way to create collators that can compare strings based on a specific language and region. This allows for more precise control over the comparison process.

Keep in mind that the ICU and CLDR libraries are often used behind the scenes by JavaScript engines to provide accurate locale-based comparisons, but using `Intl.Collator.compare()` directly is still a relatively simple and efficient way to achieve this.

**Device-specific considerations**

The benchmark results indicate that Chrome 100 on Linux Desktop has performed better for `localeCompare()`, with an execution rate of around 6283 executions per second. However, the performance difference between the two approaches may vary depending on your specific use case, system configuration, and target browser or platform.

In summary, when it comes to comparing strings in JavaScript, the choice between `localeCompare()` and `Intl.Collator.compare()` depends on your priorities:

* For simplicity and wide compatibility, `localeCompare()` might be sufficient.
* If you need more accuracy and predictability, especially for Unicode-compliant strings, using `Intl.Collator.compare()` or a custom implementation with ICU/CLDR libraries may be necessary.

Related benchmarks:

Intl.Collator.compare() vs localeCompare() 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: localeCompare() vs Intl.Collator.compare()

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

localeCompare()

Intl.Collator.compare()

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):