Benchmark: json stringify vs array joinfffff

Script Preparation code:

function moreData(arr, left) {
  if(left === 0) return arr;
  else {
    arr.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 256));
  	return moreData(arr, left - 1);
  }
}
function makeTestData() { return moreData([], 4); }

var data = makeTestData()

Tests:

join
data.join()
JSON.stringify
JSON.stringify(data);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
join
JSON.stringify

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test case, "json stringify vs array joinfffff", compares two approaches to concatenate an array: `join()` method and `JSON.stringify()`. The script preparation code creates a large array with random data by recursively pushing values onto it. This process generates a huge dataset that can be used for benchmarking.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **`join()` method**: Concatenates an array using the `join()` method, which takes a string as its argument and returns a new string with the elements of the array separated by the specified separator.
2. **`JSON.stringify()`**: Converts an object (in this case, the array) to a JSON string, which can be used for concatenation.

**Pros and Cons**

1. `join()` method:
	* Pros: Fast, lightweight, and easy to use.
	* Cons: May not work well with non-string values, and may have performance issues if the separator is very large or complex.
2. `JSON.stringify()`: 
	* Pros: Works well with any type of data, including arrays, objects, and custom objects.
	* Cons: Slow for very large datasets, as it requires parsing the entire object to string.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no specific libraries mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, the use of `JSON.stringify()` suggests that the browser supports this standard JavaScript method for converting objects to strings.

No special JS features are used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives for concatenating arrays could include:

* Using a custom implementation with loops and string concatenation.
* Utilizing library functions like Lodash's `arrayJoin()`.
* Employing streaming or chunked processing approaches, which can be more efficient than concatenating large datasets at once.

It's worth noting that the use of `join()` method is generally preferred for array concatenation due to its simplicity and performance benefits. However, the choice of approach depends on specific requirements, such as handling non-string values, working with very large datasets, or ensuring compatibility with legacy browsers.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
join	8689802.0 Ops/sec
JSON.stringify	3276626.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

json stringify vs array joinfffff (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: join vs JSON.stringify

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

join

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):