Benchmark: Collator vs LocaleCompare test with sort

Script Preparation code:

var values = (new Array(10000)).fill(0).map((a, i) => ({ name: i % 2 && i % 3 ? 'a' : 'b' }));
var collator = new Intl.Collator();
var langCollator = new Intl.Collator('en');

Tests:

Intl.Collator.compare
const sortTagsBySetId = (a, b) => { return collator.compare(a.name, b.name); }; values.concat().sort(sortTagsBySetId);
localCompare
const sortTagsBySetId = (a, b) => { return a.name.localeCompare(b.name); }; values.concat().sort(sortTagsBySetId);
Intl.Collator.compare with lang
const sortTagsBySetId = (a, b) => { return langCollator.compare(a.name, b.name); }; values.concat().sort(sortTagsBySetId);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.Collator.compare
localCompare
Intl.Collator.compare with lang

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two sorting algorithms for a specific use case: sorting a list of strings using either the `Intl.Collator.compare` method or the `localeCompare` method. The test also includes a variant with a language-dependent collator (`Intl.Collator.compare with lang`).

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code generates an array of 10,000 objects, each with a unique name property that alternates between 'a' and 'b'. This creates a unique string for each object in the array.

```javascript
var values = (new Array(10000)).fill(0).map((a, i) => ({ name: i % 2 && i % 3 ? 'a' : 'b'}));
```

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case consists of a single line of JavaScript code that defines a sorting function and sorts the generated array using that function.

1. `Intl.Collator.compare`
```javascript
const sortTagsBySetId = (a, b) => {
  return collator.compare(a.name, b.name);
};
values.concat().sort(sortTagsBySetId);
```

This test case uses the `Intl.Collator` API to compare the names of two objects. The `compare` method is called on a `Intl.Collator` instance created for the English locale.

**Pros and Cons**

Using `Intl.Collator.compare` has some pros:

* It provides a standardized way to compare strings based on their Unicode code points.
* It can handle languages with complex sorting rules.

However, it also has some cons:

* It may be slower than other methods due to its additional overhead.
* Some users may not have the `Intl` API enabled in their browser.

2. `localCompare`
```javascript
const sortTagsBySetId = (a, b) => {
  return a.name.localeCompare(b.name);
};
values.concat().sort(sortTagsBySetId);
```

This test case uses the built-in `localeCompare` method to compare the names of two objects.

Pros:

* It is generally faster than using `Intl.Collator.compare`.
* It does not require any additional libraries or extensions.

Cons:

* It may not provide the same level of standardization as `Intl.Collator.compare`.
* Its behavior can vary between languages and locales.

3. `Intl.Collator.compare with lang`
```javascript
const sortTagsBySetId = (a, b) => {
  return langCollator.compare(a.name, b.name);
};
values.concat().sort(sortTagsBySetId);
```

This test case uses a language-dependent collator (`Intl.Collator` instance created for the English locale) to compare the names of two objects.

Pros:

* It provides a standardized way to compare strings based on their Unicode code points.
* It can handle languages with complex sorting rules.

Cons:

* It may be slower than using `Intl.Collator.compare`.
* Some users may not have the `Intl` API enabled in their browser.

**Library and Purpose**

The `Intl` API, including `Intl.Collator`, is a part of the ECMAScript Internationalization API. Its purpose is to provide a standardized way to handle internationalization and localization tasks in JavaScript.

The `localeCompare` method is also a part of the ECMAScript standard and provides a way to compare strings based on their Unicode code points, but without the need for an additional library or extension.

**Special JS Feature**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features beyond what's required by the standard.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative sorting algorithms that could be used in this benchmark include:

* Bubble sort
* Selection sort
* Insertion sort
* Merge sort

However, these algorithms are generally slower than the `sort` method used in the benchmark and may not provide the same level of performance for large datasets.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:105.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/105.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 105 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.Collator.compare	194.9 Ops/sec
localCompare	189.3 Ops/sec
Intl.Collator.compare with lang	192.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Collator vs LocaleCompare test with sort (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.Collator.compare vs localCompare vs Intl.Collator.compare with lang

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.Collator.compare

localCompare

Intl.Collator.compare with lang

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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