Benchmark: String Concat vs JSON.stringify

Script Preparation code:

var availableSizes = [];
for(var i=0;i<10000;i++){
  availableSizes.push({label: i, system: i});
}

Tests:

JSON.stringify
var output=[]; for(var i=0, len=availableSizes.length; i<len; i++){ output.push(JSON.stringify(availableSizes[i])); }
String concat
var output=[]; for(var i=0, len=availableSizes.length; i<len; i++){ output.push(availableSizes[i].label + '_' + availableSizes[i].system); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON.stringify
String concat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and benchmark setup to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches:

1. **String Concatenation**: This approach involves concatenating strings using the `+` operator or template literals (although it's not explicitly mentioned in the code, it's implied by the fact that string concatenation is used).
2. **JSON.stringify**: This approach uses the built-in `JSON.stringify()` function to convert JavaScript values into a JSON string.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches on a dataset of 10,000 objects with two properties each (label and system).

**Pros and Cons**

* **String Concatenation**:
	+ Pros: Simple, widely supported, and easy to understand.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than `JSON.stringify()` for large datasets, as it involves creating multiple temporary strings.
* **JSON.stringify()**:
	+ Pros: Faster and more efficient for large datasets, as it uses a single string conversion process.
	+ Cons: May have performance issues with very large datasets or complex objects, as the conversion process can become slower.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in the benchmark code. However, it's worth noting that `JSON.stringify()` relies on the V8 JavaScript engine's built-in JSON serialization implementation, which may not be available in all environments.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark beyond what's required to perform the string concatenation and JSON conversion. However, it's worth noting that modern JavaScript engines like V8 have improved performance and efficiency for these operations over time.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to reimplement a similar benchmark, you could consider additional approaches, such as:

* Using a different serialization library or implementation (e.g., `xmlserializer`, `js-serializer`).
* Comparing the performance of other string concatenation techniques, like using `Array.prototype.join()` or a template engine.
* Incorporating additional factors that can affect performance, such as:
	+ Object size and complexity.
	+ Array length and distribution.
	+ Cache behavior and memory allocation.
	+ Browser and platform-specific optimizations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant modifications to the benchmark code and test setup.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/106.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/106.0.1370.47

Browser/OS: Chrome 106 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JSON.stringify	176.1 Ops/sec
String concat	461.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String Concat vs JSON.stringify (version: 0)

String Concat vs JSON.stringify

Comparing performance of: JSON.stringify vs String concat

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JSON.stringify

String concat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):