Benchmark: Intl.Collator.compare() lowercase vs sensitivity #2

Script Preparation code:

var arr = ['A', 'a', 'B', 'b', 'C', 'c', 'D', 'd'];

var options = {
  sensitivity: 'accent'
};

var collator1 = new Intl.Collator(undefined, options);
var collator2 = new Intl.Collator();

Tests:

lowercase
arr.sort((a,b) => collator2.compare(a.toLowerCase(), b.toLowerCase()))
sensitivity
arr.sort(collator1.compare)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lowercase
sensitivity

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

sensitivity

2.9M/s

lowercase

1.8M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ sensitivity	2,876,248 Ops/sec
lowercase	1,833,893 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches when sorting an array of strings using the `Intl.Collator.compare()` method:

1. Using a custom collator with sensitivity set to `'accent'` (case 1)
2. Without any custom options or settings (case 2)

**Collator Library**

The `Intl.Collator` library is part of the ECMAScript Internationalization API, which provides functionality for comparing strings based on their linguistic properties, such as accents and sorting rules.

In this benchmark, two instances of `Intl.Collator` are created:

1. `collator1`: with sensitivity set to `'accent'`, indicating that the comparison should take into account accents and other diacritical marks.
2. `collator2`: without any custom options or settings, which means it will use its default behavior.

**Performance Comparison**

The benchmark measures the performance of sorting an array of strings using each collator instance:

1. Case 1: With sensitivity set to `'accent'`, the code uses `arr.sort((a,b) => collator1.compare(a.toLowerCase(), b.toLowerCase()))`.
2. Case 2: Without any custom options, the code uses `arr.sort(collator2.compare)`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a summary of the pros and cons for each approach:

**Case 1 (sensitivity set to `'accent'`)**

Pros:

* More accurate comparisons, especially when dealing with accented characters
* Can be beneficial in certain applications where accuracy matters

Cons:

* May lead to slower performance due to the additional computational overhead
* Requires careful tuning of sensitivity settings for optimal results

**Case 2 (default behavior)**

Pros:

* Typically faster and more efficient, as it doesn't introduce additional complexity
* Easier to implement and maintain, as no custom options need to be set

Cons:

* May not provide accurate enough comparisons, especially when dealing with accented characters
* Less suitable for applications where accuracy is crucial

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* Accuracy requirements: If you need precise comparisons, Case 1 might be a better choice. For less demanding use cases, Case 2 could suffice.
* Performance trade-offs: Faster performance may come at the cost of accuracy. Weigh these competing factors to decide which approach is best for your specific needs.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives exist, such as using:

1. Unicode code points to compare strings directly
2. Custom sorting algorithms that don't rely on collators
3. Other libraries or frameworks with optimized string comparison capabilities

However, the ECMAScript Internationalization API provides a convenient and standardized way to handle string comparisons, making `Intl.Collator` a popular choice for many developers.

I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Intl.Collator.compare() lowercase vs sensitivity #2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `lowercase vs sensitivity`

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

lowercase

sensitivity

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Intl.Collator.compare() lowercase vs sensitivity #2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lowercase vs sensitivity

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

lowercase

sensitivity

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `lowercase vs sensitivity`