Benchmark: Intl.Collator('en').compare vs localeCompare

Script Preparation code:

const minCodePoint = 'a'.charCodeAt(0);
const maxCodePoint = 'z'.charCodeAt(0);
const randomLetter = () => String.fromCharCode(Math.floor(Math.random() * (maxCodePoint - minCodePoint) + minCodePoint));
const createWord = () => Array.from({length: 15}, randomLetter).join('');

var words = Array.from({length: 50000}, createWord);

Tests:

Intl.Collator
const collator = new Intl.Collator('en'); words.sort(collator.compare);
localeCompare
words.sort((a, b) => a.localeCompare(b))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.Collator
localeCompare

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 JSON data and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches:

1. **Intl.Collator**: This method uses the Internationalization API to create a collator object, which is then used to sort an array of words using the `compare` method.
2. **localeCompare**: This method uses the built-in `localeCompare` function to compare strings.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* **Intl.Collator**:
	+ Pros:
		- More explicit and controlled way of sorting, which can be beneficial for certain use cases.
	+ Cons:
		- May have performance overhead due to the creation of a collator object.
		- Might not be supported in older browsers or environments.
* **localeCompare**:
	+ Pros:
		- Lightweight and efficient, as it only requires calling a single function.
	+ Cons:
		- Less explicit and controlled way of sorting, which can lead to unexpected results if not used carefully.

**Library**

The `Intl.Collator` method uses the Internationalization API, which is a part of the ECMAScript standard. The purpose of this library is to provide a standardized way of comparing strings based on cultural and linguistic rules.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that `Intl.Collator` uses Unicode code points, which can be an interesting aspect of the comparison.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* Performance: If you need a lightweight and efficient solution, `localeCompare` might be the better choice. However, if you require more control over the sorting process, `Intl.Collator` might be a better fit.
* Support: Make sure that both options are supported in your target browsers or environments.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're not using `Intl.Collator`, other alternatives for string comparison include:

* Using the `String.prototype.localeCompare()` method (as shown in the benchmark)
* Implementing a custom sorting function using JavaScript's built-in functions, such as `String.prototype.split()`, `Array.prototype.sort()`, and `String.prototype.indexOf()`
* Using a third-party library or implementation for string comparison

In general, when choosing a string comparison approach, consider factors like performance, control, support, and maintainability.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.Collator	86.6 Ops/sec
localeCompare	209.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Intl.Collator('en').compare vs localeCompare (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.Collator vs localeCompare

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.Collator

localeCompare

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):