Benchmark: Intl.Collator.compare() lowercase vs sensitivity #3

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)
Intl.Collator
arr.sort((a,b) => Intl.Collator().compare(a.toLowerCase(), b.toLowerCase()))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lowercase
sensitivity
Intl.Collator

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

Intl.Collator

49K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ sensitivity	2,859,483 Ops/sec
lowercase	1,774,996 Ops/sec
Intl.Collator	49,069 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 is designed to compare three different approaches for sorting an array of strings using the `Intl.Collator` API:

1. Using a custom collator with sensitivity set to `'accent'`
2. Sorting without any custom collator
3. Using a new, global `Intl.Collator()` instance

**Library: Intl.Collator**

The `Intl.Collator` API is a part of the Internationalization API in JavaScript, which provides support for comparing strings based on various locale-specific rules. The primary purpose of `Intl.Collator` is to sort strings in a way that takes into account the nuances of human language, such as accents and diacritical marks.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares three different options:

1. **Custom collator with sensitivity set to `'accent'`**: This option creates a new `Intl.Collator` instance with custom settings (sensitivity) that prioritize accent-based sorting. This allows for more precise control over the comparison rules.
2. **Sorting without any custom collator**: This option relies on the default comparison behavior of JavaScript's built-in string sorting algorithm, which may not take into account all locale-specific rules.
3. **New, global `Intl.Collator()` instance**: This option uses a new, shared instance of `Intl.Collator` for all comparisons. Since this instance is reused, its settings and locale information are preserved between runs.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Custom collator with sensitivity set to `'accent'`**:
	* Pros: More precise control over comparison rules, takes into account accents and diacritical marks.
	* Cons: Requires more code and setup, may have performance implications due to custom configuration.
2. **Sorting without any custom collator**:
	* Pros: Simple and lightweight, relies on built-in string sorting algorithm.
	* Cons: May not take into account all locale-specific rules, can lead to inconsistent results.
3. **New, global `Intl.Collator()` instance**:
	* Pros: Convenient and easy to use, reuses the same instance for all comparisons.
	* Cons: Preserves settings and locale information between runs, which may not be desirable in some cases.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark uses a special JavaScript feature called **arrow functions**, which are used to define small, one-line functions. This syntax is introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and provides a concise way to create functions without the need for `function` keywords.

Now that we've explained what's being tested, let's discuss alternative approaches:

* Other alternatives could include using different comparison algorithms or data structures, such as sorting arrays using a library like Lodash or implementing a custom sorting algorithm.
* Alternatively, the benchmark could focus on testing specific aspects of the `Intl.Collator` API, such as its handling of Unicode characters or support for multiple locales.

Intl.Collator.compare() lowercase vs sensitivity #3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `lowercase vs sensitivity vs Intl.Collator`

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

lowercase

sensitivity

Intl.Collator

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 #3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lowercase vs sensitivity vs Intl.Collator

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

lowercase

sensitivity

Intl.Collator

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 vs Intl.Collator`