Benchmark: JSON.stringify - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var testData = {"bar":"foo", "x": [1,2,3], "y": 144366}

Tests:

JSON.stringify 1
simpleStringify(testData);
JSON.stringify 2
JSON.stringify(testData)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON.stringify 1
JSON.stringify 2

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 what's being tested in the provided JSON.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is used to create a test data object (`testData`) that will be used as input for the `JSON.stringify` function. The object contains three properties: `"bar"` with value `"foo"`, an array `"x"` with values `[1,2,3]`, and a numeric value `"y"` equal to 144366.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is where the actual test code runs. There are two test cases:

1. `JSON.stringify 1`: This test calls `simpleStringify` function, which is not shown in the provided JSON. However, based on the context, it's likely that this function is a wrapper around the built-in `JSON.stringify` method.
2. `JSON.stringify 2`: This test directly calls the built-in `JSON.stringify` method.

**Library and Purpose**

The `simpleStringify` function is not shown in the provided JSON, but based on its usage, it's likely that it's a wrapper around the `JSON.stringify` method to add some custom behavior or optimization. The purpose of this library is not explicitly stated in the provided JSON, but it might be used to improve performance, handle edge cases, or provide additional functionality.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two approaches are compared:

1. Directly calling the built-in `JSON.stringify` method (`JSON.stringify 2`).
2. Calling a custom wrapper function `simpleStringify` that wraps around the built-in `JSON.stringify` method (`JSON.stringify 1`).

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

**Directly calling `JSON.stringify` (Test case 2)**

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward implementation.
* Built-in function, so its behavior is well-documented.

Cons:

* Might be slower due to overhead from parsing the input object.
* Limited control over custom behaviors or optimizations.

**Calling `simpleStringify` wrapper function (Test case 1)**

Pros:

* Can provide additional functionality, customizations, or optimizations.
* Might be faster due to optimized implementation by the wrapper author.

Cons:

* More complex and harder to understand due to added abstraction.
* Behavior might differ from the built-in `JSON.stringify` method.

**Other Considerations**

Other factors that can affect benchmark results include:

* Input data size and complexity: Larger or more complex input data can impact performance.
* Hardware and software platform: Different platforms, browsers, or architectures can have varying performance characteristics.
* Optimization techniques: Compilers, optimizers, or other tools might be used to improve performance.

**Alternatives**

If you were to reimplement this benchmark with different approaches, some alternatives could include:

1. Using a different stringification library (e.g., `JSON.stringify` with a custom parser).
2. Implementing a custom stringifier from scratch.
3. Comparing different algorithms or techniques for parsing and serializing objects.
4. Adding more complex input data to test performance under heavy load.

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on the specific requirements, constraints, and goals of your project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JSON.stringify 1	0.0 Ops/sec
JSON.stringify 2	5060143.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JSON.stringify (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JSON.stringify 1 vs JSON.stringify 2

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JSON.stringify 1

JSON.stringify 2

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):