Benchmark: JSON vs URLSearchParams

Script Preparation code:

var data = { funnelId: "test-funnel-id", channelId: "test-channel-id", metricName: "test-metric-name" }

Tests:

JSON.stringify
var result = JSON.stringify(data)
URLSearchParams
var result = new URLSearchParams(data)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON.stringify
URLSearchParams

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, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two JavaScript methods: `JSON.stringify()` and `URLSearchParams`. The benchmark aims to measure which method is faster when serializing a JSON object.

**JSON.stringify() Method**

`JSON.stringify()` is a built-in JavaScript method that converts a JavaScript value (such as an object) into a string. It's commonly used for serialization, data exchange, or storage.

Pros:

1. **Simple and straightforward**: `JSON.stringify()` is a well-known and widely supported method in JavaScript.
2. **Easy to use**: The syntax is simple and intuitive, making it accessible to developers with varying levels of experience.

Cons:

1. **Performance**: `JSON.stringify()` can be slower than `URLSearchParams` for large data sets due to the overhead of converting the object into a JSON string.
2. **Limited control**: The method can produce unexpected results if the input data is not in a serializable format (e.g., functions, undefined values).

**URLSearchParams Method**

`URLSearchParams` is a built-in JavaScript class that represents a set of URL query parameters. When used with `JSON.stringify()`, it creates a serialized string representation of an object.

Pros:

1. **Performance**: `URLSearchParams` can be faster than `JSON.stringify()` for large data sets, as it avoids the overhead of converting the object into a JSON string.
2. **Control and flexibility**: The method allows more control over the serialization process, making it suitable for complex data structures.

Cons:

1. **Less intuitive**: While `URLSearchParams` is a useful class, its usage can be less familiar to developers without prior experience with URL query parameters.
2. **Depends on specific implementation**: Some older browsers might not support `URLSearchParams`, which could impact the benchmark's reliability.

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, `JSON.stringify()` uses the built-in JavaScript method, while `URLSearchParams` leverages a built-in class (not a library). No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these test cases.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other methods for serializing JSON data include:

1. **Lodash's `toJSON()` function**: This method is designed to work with the Lodash library and provides more control over serialization.
2. **YAML or other serialization libraries**: For complex data structures, YAML (YAML Ain't Markup Language) or other specialized serialization libraries might be used.
3. **Custom serialization functions**: Developers can create custom serialization functions using various techniques, such as string concatenation or recursive function calls.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs and requirements for compatibility with different browsers or platforms.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JSON.stringify	1293982.8 Ops/sec
URLSearchParams	428892.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JSON vs URLSearchParams (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JSON.stringify vs URLSearchParams

Created: 10 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

JSON.stringify

URLSearchParams

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):