Benchmark: localeCompare numeric true vs false

Script Preparation code:

var a = 'a200bcd32efg9';
var b = 'a200bcd32efg11';

var comparator = { locale: null, collator: null };
var numericComparator = { locale: null, collator: null };
var baseComparator = { locale: null, collator: null };

var localeCompare = (a, b, locale) => {
  if (!comparator.collator || comparator.locale !== locale) {
    comparator.locale = locale;
    comparator.collator = new Intl.Collator(locale);
  }

  return comparator.collator.compare(a, b);
};

var localeCompareNumeric = (a, b, locale) => {
  if (!numericComparator.collator || numericComparator.locale !== locale) {
    numericComparator.locale = locale;
    numericComparator.collator = new Intl.Collator(locale, {
      numeric: true,
    });
  }

  return numericComparator.collator.compare(a, b);
};

var localeCompareBase = (a, b, locale) => {
  if (!baseComparator.collator || baseComparator.locale !== locale) {
    baseComparator.locale = locale;
    baseComparator.collator = new Intl.Collator(locale, {
      sensitivity: 'base',
    });
  }

  return baseComparator.collator.compare(a, b);
};

Tests:

localeCompare
localeCompare(a, b, 'en-US');
localeCompareNumeric
localeCompareNumeric(a, b, 'en-US');
localeCompareBase
localeCompareBase(a, b, 'en-US');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
localeCompare
localeCompareNumeric
localeCompareBase

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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of three variants of the `localeCompare` function:

1. `localeCompareBase`: uses the default options (`sensitivity: 'base'`)
2. `localeCompareNumeric`: uses numeric-only comparison (`numeric: true`)
3. `localeCompare`: uses locale-specific comparison (with an empty locale object)

**Options Comparison**

The benchmark compares these three variants of the `localeCompare` function on a specific test case:

* `localeCompareBase`
	+ Uses default options for locale and collator
	+ Has a sensitivity setting set to `'base'`, which means it will perform a base-level comparison, ignoring certain characters like accents or diacritics
	+ Pros: generally faster performance due to reduced complexity
	+ Cons: may not provide accurate results in cases where the `'base'` sensitivity is not suitable
* `localeCompareNumeric`
	+ Uses numeric-only comparison, setting the `numeric` option to `true`
	+ Pros: provides accurate results for numeric comparisons and can be faster than the default locale-based approach
	+ Cons: may not provide accurate results for non-numeric comparisons, as it will ignore any non-numeric characters
* `localeCompare` (without specific locale options)
	+ Uses an empty locale object, which means it falls back to default locale behavior
	+ Pros: provides accurate results for most cases, but may be slower due to the need to fall back to a default locale
	+ Cons: may not provide accurate results in cases where the default locale is not suitable

**Library and Framework Considerations**

The benchmark uses the `Intl` API, specifically the `Collator` class, which provides locale-specific comparison functionality. The `Collator` class is part of the ECMAScript Internationalization API (ECMAScript 5.1) and is supported by most modern browsers.

**Special JavaScript Features and Syntax**

None are mentioned in this specific benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript features like async/await or `let const` might be used in the implementation of the `localeCompare` functions, but they are not explicitly mentioned here.

**Other Alternatives**

There are other alternatives for implementing locale-specific comparison functionality, such as:

* Using a library like `moment.js` or `dayjs` to handle date and time comparisons
* Implementing a custom comparison function using regular expressions or string manipulation techniques
* Using a different API like the `String.prototype.localeCompare()` method (not recommended due to browser compatibility issues)

In summary, this benchmark measures the performance of three variants of the `localeCompare` function, comparing their execution times and accuracy. It's essential to choose the right approach based on the specific use case and performance requirements.

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
localeCompare	3936013.0 Ops/sec
localeCompareNumeric	3047264.0 Ops/sec
localeCompareBase	3971653.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

localeCompare numeric true vs false (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: localeCompare vs localeCompareNumeric vs localeCompareBase

Created: 5 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

localeCompare

localeCompareNumeric

localeCompareBase

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):