Benchmark: String compare with localCompare

Tests:

Using string comparison
const test = ['Sweden', 'Japan', 'New Zealand', 'United States', 'Australia']; test.sort((a,b) => a < b ? -1 : (a > b ? 1 : 0)); console.log(test);
localCompare
const test = ['Sweden', 'Japan', 'New Zealand', 'United States', 'Australia']; test.sort((a,b) => a.localeCompare(b)); console.log(test);
Using collator
const collator = new Intl.Collator('en', { numeric: true, sensitivity: 'base' }); const test = ['Sweden', 'Japan', 'New Zealand', 'United States', 'Australia']; test.sort((a, b) => collator.compare(a, b)); console.log(test)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Using string comparison
localCompare
Using collator

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 dive into the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The MeasureThat.net website allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a benchmark with three individual test cases, each testing a different approach for comparing strings in JavaScript.

**Test Cases**

1. **"Using string comparison"**: This test case uses the `<` operator to compare two strings. It's a basic approach that works by checking if the first character of each string is smaller than the second character.
	* Pros: Simple and easy to understand, but this method can be slow for large strings due to the need for explicit looping and comparison.
	* Cons: Not optimized for performance and may not work correctly for all edge cases.
2. **"localCompare"**: This test case uses the `localeCompare()` method to compare two strings. It's a more efficient approach that takes into account cultural and linguistic nuances, making it suitable for most use cases.
	* Pros: More efficient than basic string comparison, handles cultural differences, and is widely supported in modern browsers.
	* Cons: May have different behavior depending on the user's locale settings, which can lead to inconsistent results if not handled properly.
3. **"Using collator"**: This test case uses the `Intl.Collator` API to compare two strings. It provides more advanced features than `localeCompare()`, such as support for multiple languages and cultures.
	* Pros: Provides more flexibility and control over comparison behavior, handles complex cases like sorting and categorization.
	* Cons: May have a steeper learning curve due to its additional features, and performance may vary depending on the specific use case.

**Libraries and Features**

In the provided benchmark result, we see that Chrome 123 is used as the browser. The `Intl.Collator` API is used in one of the test cases (`"Using collator"`), which provides internationalization support for string comparison.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark code.

**Other Alternatives**

For more advanced string comparison tasks, other alternatives might include:

* **Regular expressions**: Can be used to match and compare strings, but may not provide the same level of linguistic nuance as `Intl.Collator`.
* **Custom sorting algorithms**: Can be implemented using JavaScript, providing fine-grained control over comparison behavior.
* **Third-party libraries**: Such as `lodash` or `underscore`, which offer more comprehensive string manipulation and comparison functionality.

In summary, the benchmark tests three approaches for comparing strings in JavaScript: basic string comparison, `localeCompare()`, and `Intl.Collator`. Each approach has its pros and cons, and understanding these differences is essential for choosing the best solution for a specific use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Using string comparison	307078.6 Ops/sec
localCompare	256645.6 Ops/sec
Using collator	85908.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String compare with localCompare (version: 0)

string vs localCompare

Comparing performance of: Using string comparison vs localCompare vs Using collator

Created: 8 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Using string comparison

localCompare

Using collator

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):