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:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:132.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/132.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 132 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
localeCompare()	9105719.0 Ops/sec
Intl.Collator.compare()	9941314.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that compares two approaches for comparing strings:

1. `localeCompare()` (shortened as "localeComp")
2. `Intl.Collator.compare()` (shortened as "collatorComp")

The test case consists of two individual tests, each measuring the performance of one of these two approaches.

**What are the options being compared?**

We have two options:

A) `localeCompare()`: a built-in JavaScript method for comparing strings based on their locale settings. This method uses a combination of factors such as language, script, and region to determine the comparison outcome.

B) `Intl.Collator.compare()`: a method from the Internationalization API (Intl.) that provides more fine-grained control over string comparisons. It allows you to specify the language and script for the comparison.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. `localeCompare()`:
	* Pros:
		+ More convenient to use, as it's a built-in method.
		+ Typically faster than `Intl.Collator.compare()`, since it doesn't require additional setup.
	* Cons:
		+ May not produce consistent results across different locales or scripts.
		+ Can be slower for shorter strings due to the overhead of determining the locale settings.
2. `Intl.Collator.compare()`:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides more control over the comparison outcome, allowing for custom language and script selection.
		+ Can be faster for longer strings, since it doesn't require determining locale settings.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires additional setup and importing of the Intl API.
		+ May be slower than `localeCompare()` due to the overhead of creating a collator instance.

**Library/Feature description:**

In this benchmark, we don't have any specific libraries or features being tested. However, it's worth noting that the `Intl.Collator` API is a part of the Internationalization API (Intl.), which provides features for working with different languages and scripts in JavaScript.

**Special JS feature/syntax description:**

There are no special JS features or syntaxes being used in this benchmark. The code consists only of standard JavaScript and uses built-in methods (`localeCompare()` and `Intl.Collator.compare()`) and variables.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring other string comparison approaches, here are a few alternatives:

1. Using the `<` operator directly (e.g., `a < b`)
2. Implementing a custom string comparison function using bitwise operators and arithmetic operations.
3. Using a library like Lodash's `isEqual()` function or Moment.js's `compare()` method.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide the same level of control or consistency as the built-in methods used in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

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

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

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

localeCompare()

Intl.Collator.compare()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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