Benchmark: localCompare vs ===

Script Preparation code:

var text='hola'

Tests:

localCompare
text.localeCompare('hola');
===
text === 'hola'

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
localCompare
===

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/99.0.4844.74 Safari/537.36 Edg/99.0.1150.46

Browser/OS: Chrome 99 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
localCompare	12722858.0 Ops/sec
===	14038012.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its various components.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares the performance of two approaches: `localCompare` and `'='`. The benchmark aims to measure which approach is faster for locale-dependent string comparisons.

**Options Compared:**

1. **`localCompare`**: This method performs a locale-dependent comparison of two strings, taking into account cultural differences in formatting and casing.
2. **`'='` (equality operator)**: This method performs an ASCII-based comparison of two strings, ignoring non-ASCII characters and case.

**Pros and Cons:**

* `localCompare`:
	+ Pros: More accurate for locale-dependent comparisons, takes into account cultural differences.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the complexity of locale-dependent comparisons.
* `'='` (equality operator):
	+ Pros: Faster, as it relies on ASCII-based comparison, which is generally simpler.
	+ Cons: May not be accurate for non-ASCII characters or locale-dependent comparisons.

**Library and Purpose:**
The `localeCompare()` method uses the ECMAScript standard library's built-in implementation. This function takes into account cultural differences in formatting and casing when comparing strings.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**
There is no specific JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, it does rely on the use of locale-dependent comparisons, which can be an advanced topic for some developers.

**Other Alternatives:**

If `localCompare` and `'='` are not sufficient for your needs, you may want to consider other string comparison methods:

* **`indexOf()`**: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of a substring within another string. While not exactly equivalent to `localCompare`, it can be used as a fallback if necessary.
* **`String.prototype.indexOf()`**: A modern alternative to `indexOf()`, this method is also locale-dependent and provides more accurate results for similar use cases.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have their own trade-offs, such as performance or accuracy.

In the context of this benchmark, the choice between `localCompare` and `'='` depends on your specific requirements. If you need a more accurate comparison that takes into account cultural differences, `localCompare` is likely the better choice. However, if speed is a top priority, `'='` may be sufficient for ASCII-based comparisons.

Related benchmarks:

localCompare vs === (version: 0)

Comparing performance of localCompare vs '==='

Comparing performance of: localCompare vs ===

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

localCompare

===

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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