Benchmark: 12312312 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

34123423412342
const a = {}; for (let i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) { a[i] = i; } JSON.stringify(a);
2312412342134
const a = {}; for (let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { a[i] = i; } JSON.stringify(a);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
34123423412342
2312412342134

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests the performance of creating and stringifying large objects in JavaScript. Specifically, it measures how quickly an object can be created with a large number of properties (using a for loop) and then converted to a JSON string using `JSON.stringify()`.

**Options compared:**

There are two test cases:

1. **Test Case 1**: The benchmark definition is: `const a = {}; for (let i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) { a[i] = i; } JSON.stringify(a);`
	* This test case creates an object with 1 million properties and then converts it to a JSON string using `JSON.stringify()`.
2. **Test Case 2**: The benchmark definition is: `const a = {}; for (let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { a[i] = i; } JSON.stringify(a);`
	* This test case creates an object with 100,000 properties and then converts it to a JSON string using `JSON.stringify()`.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Test Case 1 (1 million properties)**:
	+ Pros: It tests the performance of creating large objects with many properties.
	+ Cons: Creating such a large object may not be representative of real-world scenarios, as most applications don't require objects with that many properties.
2. **Test Case 2 (100,000 properties)**:
	* Pros: This test case is more representative of real-world scenarios, where objects often have fewer properties than the first test case.
	* Cons: It may not be as revealing about performance in extreme cases.

**Other considerations:**

1. **Language features:** These benchmarks don't seem to exploit any special JavaScript language features or syntax, so they are relatively straightforward.
2. **Library usage:** Neither benchmark uses a specific library for its test case, which means the focus is solely on the JavaScript engine's performance.

**Alternatives:**

MeasureThat.net provides various other benchmarking tools and options for testing different aspects of JavaScript performance. Some examples include:

1. **Memory allocation benchmarks**: Tests memory allocation and deallocation efficiency.
2. **Garbage collection benchmarks**: Measures the impact of garbage collection on performance.
3. **Regular expression performance benchmarks**: Compares the performance of regular expressions under various conditions.

These alternatives provide more nuanced tests that can help diagnose specific performance issues or optimize JavaScript code for different use cases.

I hope this explanation helps!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
34123423412342	10.4 Ops/sec
2312412342134	187.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

12312312 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 34123423412342 vs 2312412342134

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

34123423412342

2312412342134

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):