Benchmark: Meowww - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

const minCodePoint = 'a'.charCodeAt(0);
const maxCodePoint = 'z'.charCodeAt(0);
const randomLetter = () => String.fromCharCode(Math.floor(Math.random() * (maxCodePoint - minCodePoint) + minCodePoint));
const createWord = () => Array.from({length: 15}, randomLetter).join('');

var words = Array.from({length: 50000}, createWord);

var collator = new Intl.Collator();

Tests:

Intl
words.sort(collator.compare);
localeCompare
words.sort((a, b) => a.localeCompare(b))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl
localeCompare

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl	177.1 Ops/sec
localeCompare	485.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The test case measures the performance of sorting an array of 50,000 random words using two different methods:

1. `Intl.Collator().compare()`: This method uses the Internationalization API ( Intl ) to compare strings. It's a built-in JavaScript function that can handle Unicode characters and language-specific sorting rules.
2. `(a, b) => a.localeCompare(b)`: This is an arrow function that implements a locale-based comparison using the `localeCompare()` method. This approach is more straightforward but may not be as efficient as the Intl API for large datasets.

**Options compared:**
The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Intl.Collator().compare()**: This approach uses the Intl API to compare strings, which provides a robust and flexible way to handle Unicode characters and language-specific sorting rules.
2. **localeCompare()**: This approach uses a locale-based comparison, which is simpler but may not be as efficient as the Intl API for large datasets.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Intl.Collator().compare():**
	* Pros:
		+ Robustly handles Unicode characters and language-specific sorting rules.
		+ Can be more accurate for certain languages.
	* Cons:
		+ May have higher overhead due to the Intl API's complexity.
2. **localeCompare():**
	* Pros:
		+ Simpler and easier to understand.
	* Cons:
		+ May not handle Unicode characters or language-specific sorting rules accurately.

**Library:**
In this benchmark, the `Intl` library is used for the Intl.Collator().compare() method. The `Intl` library provides a set of APIs for internationalization and localization, including support for Unicode characters, language-specific formatting, and more.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**
There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the Intl API and localeCompare() method are built-in JavaScript features and don't require any additional libraries or imports.

**Other alternatives:**
If you wanted to compare other sorting algorithms or approaches, here are some alternatives:

* Using a simple string comparison (e.g., `a < b`):
	+ Pros: Simple and easy to understand.
	+ Cons: May not handle Unicode characters accurately.
* Using a custom sorting algorithm (e.g., quicksort, mergesort):
	+ Pros: Can be more efficient for large datasets.
	+ Cons: May have higher overhead due to the algorithm's complexity.

Keep in mind that the choice of sorting algorithm or approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Related benchmarks:

Meowww (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl vs localeCompare

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl

localeCompare

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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