Benchmark: Native filter includes vs JSON.stringify Equality Comparison for Shallow Array of Strings.

Script Preparation code:

window.foo = [{id: 1, name: 'suh'}, {id: 2, name: 'asd'}];
window.bar = [{id: 2, name: 'asd'}, {id: 1, name: 'suh'}];

Tests:

native filter includes
const abc = foo.map((x) => x.id) ?? []; const xyz = bar.map((x) => x.id) ?? []; !(abc.length !== xyz.length || abc.filter((id) => !xyz.includes(id)).length > 1);
JSON.stringify
JSON.stringify(window.foo) === JSON.stringify(window.bar);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native filter includes
JSON.stringify

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/93.0.4577.63 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 93 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
native filter includes	2808941.0 Ops/sec
JSON.stringify	457764.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two approaches:

1. **Native filter includes**: This approach uses JavaScript's built-in `filter()` method to compare the length of two arrays (`abc` and `xyz`) and checks if the number of elements in `abc` that are not included in `xyz` is greater than 1.
2. **JSON.stringify Equality Comparison**: This approach uses the `JSON.stringify()` function to convert two objects (`window.foo` and `window.bar`) to strings and compares their equality.

**Comparison**

The benchmark is comparing these two approaches for shallow arrays of strings.

**Pros and Cons:**

**Native filter includes**

Pros:

* Fast and efficient, as it uses built-in JavaScript methods.
* Can handle large datasets efficiently.

Cons:

* May not work correctly for deep objects or complex data structures.
* Does not account for array sorting order differences.

**JSON.stringify Equality Comparison**

Pros:

* Works with any JavaScript object, including nested objects and arrays.
* Accounts for the uniqueness of each element's string representation.

Cons:

* Can be slower than native filter includes due to the overhead of stringification.
* May have issues with non-ASCII characters or non-UTF8 encoded strings.

**Library/Function Usage**

In this benchmark, `JSON.stringify()` is used as a function to convert objects to strings. This library function is part of the JavaScript Standard Library and is widely supported.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

For shallow arrays of strings, other approaches could include:

* Using `Array.prototype.filter()` with a custom callback function to compare elements.
* Implementing a custom string comparison function using `String.prototype.includes()`.
* Using a third-party library like Lodash's `isEqual` or `deepEqual` functions.

However, these alternatives would likely have similar performance characteristics and pros/cons as the native filter includes and JSON.stringify Equality Comparison approaches tested in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Native filter includes vs JSON.stringify Equality Comparison for Shallow Array of Strings. (version: 0)

Test

Comparing performance of: native filter includes vs JSON.stringify

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native filter includes

JSON.stringify

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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