![Namecheap Takes Down Polyfill.io Service Following Supply Chain Attack](https://cdn.sanity.io/images/cgdhsj6q/production/6af25114feaaac7179b18127c83327568ff592d1-1024x1024.webp?w=800&fit=max&auto=format)
Security News
Namecheap Takes Down Polyfill.io Service Following Supply Chain Attack
Polyfill.io has been serving malware for months via its CDN, after the project's open source maintainer sold the service to a company based in China.
fast-string-compare
Advanced tools
Readme
This is a (much) faster version of String.prototype.localeCompare() to compare two strings, useful for Array.prototype.sort() or for ordering strings in trees.
This is not equivalent to localeCompare
, and does not return the same result. localeCompare
respects the current locale (language), and orders e.g. both 'a' and 'A' before 'b'. See Intl.Collator.
The function exported by this package - compare
- returns a pure binary comparison, and is therefore just as stable and useful if some deterministic order is needed, but not necessarily a human friendly order.
import { compare } from 'fast-string-compare'
[ 'c', 'a', 'B' ].sort( compare ); // 'B', 'a', 'c'
Running this under a system heavily slowing down user code (e.g. Jest, with or without coverage), it will run much slower than localeCompare()
. This is misleading, and not the case when not running in a test environment.
Look at the benchmark code and run it using yarn benchmark
.
In these benchmarks, the fast compare is ~2-3x faster than localeCompare
, but a large part of the benchmark is logic around the actual comparison, so the difference is likely larger for the pure comparison.
❯ yarn -s benchmark
Benchmarking raw comparison algorithms...
Running test of: raw compare
fast x 12,190,097 ops/sec ±0.50% (91 runs sampled)
fast double x 11,263,299 ops/sec ±0.44% (91 runs sampled)
fast and slice x 7,343,412 ops/sec ±0.62% (91 runs sampled)
fast codepoint x 11,552,827 ops/sec ±0.67% (87 runs sampled)
Intl.Collator x 6,341,841 ops/sec ±1.12% (86 runs sampled)
localeCompare x 5,599,850 ops/sec ±1.01% (90 runs sampled)
Benchmarking comparison algorithms for sort...
Running test of: english words
fast x 2.15 ops/sec ±3.61% (10 runs sampled)
fast double x 2.04 ops/sec ±5.87% (10 runs sampled)
fast and slice x 1.36 ops/sec ±2.53% (8 runs sampled)
fast codepoint x 1.74 ops/sec ±2.18% (9 runs sampled)
Intl.Collator x 0.87 ops/sec ±0.82% (7 runs sampled)
localeCompare x 0.78 ops/sec ±4.24% (6 runs sampled)
Running test of: english words reversed
fast x 2.12 ops/sec ±5.38% (10 runs sampled)
fast double x 2.11 ops/sec ±1.76% (10 runs sampled)
fast and slice x 1.39 ops/sec ±3.90% (8 runs sampled)
fast codepoint x 1.79 ops/sec ±1.79% (9 runs sampled)
Intl.Collator x 0.89 ops/sec ±0.28% (7 runs sampled)
localeCompare x 0.79 ops/sec ±3.82% (7 runs sampled)
Running test of: english words randomized
fast x 2.12 ops/sec ±7.95% (10 runs sampled)
fast double x 2.13 ops/sec ±1.59% (10 runs sampled)
fast and slice x 1.42 ops/sec ±0.55% (8 runs sampled)
fast codepoint x 1.81 ops/sec ±0.53% (9 runs sampled)
Intl.Collator x 0.88 ops/sec ±3.13% (7 runs sampled)
localeCompare x 0.80 ops/sec ±2.20% (7 runs sampled)
Running test of: data type words
fast x 10,857 ops/sec ±0.74% (92 runs sampled)
fast double x 9,770 ops/sec ±0.76% (93 runs sampled)
fast and slice x 6,135 ops/sec ±0.44% (94 runs sampled)
fast codepoint x 8,212 ops/sec ±0.89% (93 runs sampled)
Intl.Collator x 3,778 ops/sec ±0.47% (94 runs sampled)
localeCompare x 3,434 ops/sec ±0.87% (92 runs sampled)
Running test of: data type words reversed
fast x 10,731 ops/sec ±1.09% (94 runs sampled)
fast double x 9,643 ops/sec ±0.72% (92 runs sampled)
fast and slice x 6,109 ops/sec ±0.46% (92 runs sampled)
fast codepoint x 8,158 ops/sec ±1.34% (93 runs sampled)
Intl.Collator x 3,800 ops/sec ±0.47% (93 runs sampled)
localeCompare x 3,438 ops/sec ±0.41% (92 runs sampled)
Running test of: data type words randomized
fast x 10,776 ops/sec ±1.26% (92 runs sampled)
fast double x 9,789 ops/sec ±0.38% (93 runs sampled)
fast and slice x 6,177 ops/sec ±0.32% (96 runs sampled)
fast codepoint x 8,202 ops/sec ±1.04% (93 runs sampled)
Intl.Collator x 3,786 ops/sec ±0.39% (93 runs sampled)
localeCompare x 3,431 ops/sec ±0.50% (94 runs sampled)
Benchmarking comparison algorithms for trees...
Running test of: english words
fast x 0.40 ops/sec ±2.35% (5 runs sampled)
fast double x 0.36 ops/sec ±1.33% (5 runs sampled)
fast and slice x 0.28 ops/sec ±1.56% (5 runs sampled)
fast codepoint x 0.32 ops/sec ±2.45% (5 runs sampled)
Intl.Collator x 0.24 ops/sec ±4.09% (5 runs sampled)
localeCompare x 0.22 ops/sec ±0.87% (5 runs sampled)
Running test of: english words reversed
fast x 0.38 ops/sec ±1.87% (5 runs sampled)
fast double x 0.36 ops/sec ±2.17% (5 runs sampled)
fast and slice x 0.28 ops/sec ±5.81% (5 runs sampled)
fast codepoint x 0.32 ops/sec ±1.70% (5 runs sampled)
Intl.Collator x 0.24 ops/sec ±0.98% (5 runs sampled)
localeCompare x 0.22 ops/sec ±0.86% (5 runs sampled)
Running test of: english words randomized
fast x 0.38 ops/sec ±1.03% (5 runs sampled)
fast double x 0.36 ops/sec ±1.42% (5 runs sampled)
fast and slice x 0.28 ops/sec ±1.35% (5 runs sampled)
fast codepoint x 0.33 ops/sec ±4.34% (5 runs sampled)
Intl.Collator x 0.24 ops/sec ±0.79% (5 runs sampled)
localeCompare x 0.22 ops/sec ±1.07% (5 runs sampled)
Running test of: data type words
fast x 2,688 ops/sec ±0.69% (91 runs sampled)
fast double x 2,386 ops/sec ±0.77% (95 runs sampled)
fast and slice x 1,653 ops/sec ±0.44% (95 runs sampled)
fast codepoint x 1,898 ops/sec ±0.52% (93 runs sampled)
Intl.Collator x 1,259 ops/sec ±0.38% (93 runs sampled)
localeCompare x 1,143 ops/sec ±0.48% (94 runs sampled)
Running test of: data type words reversed
fast x 2,728 ops/sec ±0.84% (92 runs sampled)
fast double x 2,389 ops/sec ±0.45% (94 runs sampled)
fast and slice x 1,654 ops/sec ±0.38% (94 runs sampled)
fast codepoint x 1,913 ops/sec ±0.34% (95 runs sampled)
Intl.Collator x 1,272 ops/sec ±0.39% (94 runs sampled)
localeCompare x 1,143 ops/sec ±0.54% (93 runs sampled)
Running test of: data type words randomized
fast x 2,723 ops/sec ±0.73% (94 runs sampled)
fast double x 2,399 ops/sec ±0.39% (95 runs sampled)
fast and slice x 1,639 ops/sec ±0.56% (93 runs sampled)
fast codepoint x 1,919 ops/sec ±0.44% (93 runs sampled)
Intl.Collator x 1,272 ops/sec ±0.38% (93 runs sampled)
localeCompare x 1,140 ops/sec ±0.89% (91 runs sampled)
FAQs
A (much) faster String.prototype.localeCompare
The npm package fast-string-compare receives a total of 15,428 weekly downloads. As such, fast-string-compare popularity was classified as popular.
We found that fast-string-compare demonstrated a not healthy version release cadence and project activity because the last version was released a year ago. It has 1 open source maintainer collaborating on the project.
Did you know?
Socket for GitHub automatically highlights issues in each pull request and monitors the health of all your open source dependencies. Discover the contents of your packages and block harmful activity before you install or update your dependencies.
Security News
Polyfill.io has been serving malware for months via its CDN, after the project's open source maintainer sold the service to a company based in China.
Security News
OpenSSF is warning open source maintainers to stay vigilant against reputation farming on GitHub, where users artificially inflate their status by manipulating interactions on closed issues and PRs.
Security News
A JavaScript library maintainer is under fire after merging a controversial PR to support legacy versions of Node.js.