Benchmark: localCompare vs Intl.Collator

Script Preparation code:

var a = "FOO BAR";
var b = "foo bar";

var collator = new Intl.Collator();

Tests:

Locale compare approach
a.localeCompare(b) === 0
Collator approach
collator.compare(a, b) === 0

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Locale compare approach
Collator approach

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches for comparing strings: `localeCompare` and using an `Intl.Collator`. We'll break down what's being tested, the pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**What's being tested?**

We have two test cases:

1. `Locale compare approach`: This test uses the `localeCompare` method to compare two strings: `"FOO BAR"` and `"foo bar"`. The goal is to determine if this method is efficient enough for string comparison.
2. `Collator approach`: This test creates an instance of `Intl.Collator`, which is a built-in JavaScript API for collation (sorting) and comparison. It then uses the `compare` method to compare the same two strings.

**Options compared**

The main difference between these two approaches lies in how they handle case-insensitivity:

* `localeCompare`: This method performs a locale-specific comparison, which means it considers uppercase and lowercase letters as equivalent when comparing strings with different casing. However, this can lead to inconsistent results across different locales.
* `Intl.Collator`: This approach provides more control over the comparison, allowing you to specify options like case sensitivity and sorting order.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

**Locale compare approach:**

Pros:

* Simple and widely supported (most modern browsers support it)
* Fast and efficient

Cons:

* Can lead to inconsistent results across different locales
* May not work correctly for strings with non-ASCII characters

**Collator approach:**

Pros:

* Provides more control over the comparison, including case sensitivity
* Supports various sorting orders and locale-specific settings

Cons:

* More complex and may require additional setup
* Not all browsers support `Intl.Collator` (though most modern ones do)

**Library and purpose**

The `Intl.Collator` library is a part of the ECMAScript Internationalization API, which provides a standardized way to perform locale-specific operations in JavaScript. The `collator.compare()` method uses this library to compare strings according to the specified options.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

No special features or syntax are required for these tests; they only use standard JavaScript methods and libraries.

**Other considerations**

When working with string comparisons, it's essential to consider factors like:

* Case sensitivity: How do you want to handle uppercase and lowercase letters when comparing strings?
* Locale-specific settings: Do you need to account for different regional conventions or language-specific rules?
* Performance: How fast do your comparison methods need to be?

**Alternatives**

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

1. **String.prototype.localeCompare()**: This method is similar to the `localeCompare` approach but uses the String.prototype object instead of assigning it to a variable.
2. **String.prototype.normalize() + String.prototype.localeCompare()**: This approach normalizes strings using Unicode normalization before comparing them using localeCompare.
3. **Custom comparison functions**: You can create custom comparison functions that handle specific cases or edge conditions, providing more control over the comparison process.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs and considerations, so it's essential to evaluate which one best fits your needs.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Locale compare approach	7035413.0 Ops/sec
Collator approach	3060346.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

localCompare vs Intl.Collator (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Locale compare approach vs Collator approach

Created: 5 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Locale compare approach

Collator approach

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):