Benchmark: localcompare string number vs compare string as number

Tests:

compare as number
Number("19.26") > Number("4.47") ? 1 : Number("19.26") < Number("4.47") ? -1 : 0
localcomapre
"19.26".localeCompare("4.47", undefined, { number: true })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
compare as number
localcomapre

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/117.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 117 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
compare as number	9736978.0 Ops/sec
localcomapre	338456.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two different approaches to compare strings in JavaScript:

1. **Direct comparison using `Number()`**: This approach converts both strings to numbers and then compares them. The resulting difference in bits between the two numbers determines the outcome (0 for equal, -1 for the first string being less than the second, and 1 if the first string is greater).
2. **Locale-based comparison using `localeCompare()`**: This approach uses the `localeCompare()` method of strings, which compares two strings according to the locale's rules. The `undefined` parameter specifies that we want to ignore case, and `{ number: true }` options specify that we want a numeric comparison.

**Options compared**

The two approaches being tested are:

* Direct comparison using `Number()`
* Locale-based comparison using `localeCompare()`

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Direct comparison using `Number()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simple to implement
		+ Fast, as it involves only basic arithmetic operations
	* Cons:
		+ May not work correctly for strings that represent non-numeric values (e.g., "hello" vs. "123")
		+ May be influenced by the system's number formatting settings
2. **Locale-based comparison using `localeCompare()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ More accurate and robust, as it takes into account locale-specific rules for comparing strings
		+ Handles non-numeric strings correctly (e.g., "hello" vs. "123")
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower than direct comparison due to the complexity of the locale's rules
		+ May produce different results depending on the user's locale settings

**Library used**

The `localeCompare()` method uses the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards for comparing strings based on their locales. This library provides a standardized way to compare strings, taking into account factors like case, accent, and non-ASCII characters.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

The `Number()` function is used to convert strings to numbers, which is a built-in JavaScript feature. The `localeCompare()` method is a part of the String prototype in JavaScript.

**Other alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to comparing strings could include:

* Using regular expressions to extract numeric values from strings
* Implementing a custom string comparison algorithm that takes into account specific requirements (e.g., ignoring whitespace or punctuation)
* Using a third-party library like ICU (International Components for Unicode) for more advanced locale-based comparisons

In conclusion, the benchmark is testing two different approaches to comparing strings in JavaScript: direct comparison using `Number()` and locale-based comparison using `localeCompare()`. The test results can help measure the performance and accuracy of each approach.

Related benchmarks:

localcompare string number vs compare string as number (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: compare as number vs localcomapre

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

compare as number

localcomapre

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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