Benchmark: JSON Stringify vs Object.values.map.join (to generate a basic 'hash' of javascript object with mixed values)

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {};
for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
    obj[i] = Math.random() < 0.5 ? new Date() : Math.random() < 0.5 ? Math.random() : i;
}

Tests:

1. JSON.stringify
JSON.stringify(obj);
2. Object.values.map.join
Object.values(obj).map((v) => v instanceof Date ? v.valueOf() : v).join('_');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1. JSON.stringify
2. Object.values.map.join

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition and Purpose**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for generating a "hash" of a JavaScript object with mixed values:

1. **JSON.stringify()**: converts the object to a JSON string, which can be used as a hash.
2. **Object.values.map.join()**: extracts the values from the object using `Object.values()`, maps each value to itself (or its string representation) using `map()`, and then joins them into a single string using `join()`.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* **JSON.stringify()**: a built-in JavaScript function that converts an object to a JSON string.
* **Object.values.map.join()**: a custom approach that uses `Object.values()` to extract the values, `map()` to transform each value, and `join()` to concatenate them into a single string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **JSON.stringify():**
	+ Pros:
		- Fast and efficient.
		- Wide support across browsers and platforms.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be suitable for all types of objects (e.g., functions, arrays).
		- Can produce unexpected results if the object contains circular references or non-JSON data.
* **Object.values.map.join():**
	+ Pros:
		- Flexible and can handle a wide range of object types.
		- Avoids potential issues with circular references or non-JSON data.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower than `JSON.stringify()` due to the additional overhead of mapping and joining.
		- Requires manual handling of potential errors (e.g., null or undefined values).

**Library Usage**

The test case uses the `Object.values()` method, which is a part of the ECMAScript standard. This method was introduced in ECMAScript 2019 (ES11) to provide a more concise way to extract an array of a given object's own enumerable property values.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark, as both approaches rely on standard JavaScript language elements.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for generating a hash from a JavaScript object, here are some options:

* **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))**: This method uses the `JSON.parse()` function to parse the JSON string generated by `JSON.stringify()`, which can produce similar results. However, this approach is not as efficient as using `JSON.stringify()` directly.
* **Array.prototype.reduce()**: Another custom approach could use `reduce()` to concatenate the values into a single string. This method would require manual handling of potential errors and might be slower than `Object.values.map.join()`.
* **Library-based solutions**: There are several libraries available that provide more efficient or flexible ways to generate hashes from JavaScript objects, such as `hashjs` or `objhash`. These libraries can offer better performance and easier usage compared to custom approaches.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific requirements, performance considerations, and the type of data being processed.

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/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1. JSON.stringify	236216.8 Ops/sec
2. Object.values.map.join	1143760.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JSON Stringify vs Object.values.map.join (to generate a basic 'hash' of javascript object with mixed values) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1. JSON.stringify vs 2. Object.values.map.join

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1. JSON.stringify

2. Object.values.map.join

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):