Benchmark: json stringify vs array tostring - complex structures

Script Preparation code:

function moreData(arr, left) {
  if(left === 0) return arr;
  else {
    arr.push({
      data: {
        properties: {
          string: "value",
          parameter: Math.floor(Math.random() * 256)
        },
        embeddedArray: new Array(Math.floor(Math.random() * 100)).fill(0)
      }
    });
  	return moreData(arr, left - 1);
  }
}
function makeTestData() { return moreData([], 4); }

Tests:

toString
makeTestData().toString()
JSON.stringify
JSON.stringify(makeTestData());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toString
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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two methods to convert complex data structures into strings: `Array.toString()` vs `JSON.stringify()`. The test case creates an array of objects, where each object has a nested structure with multiple levels of complexity. This represents a common scenario in JavaScript development.

**Options being compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **`Array.toString()`**: This method converts the entire array into a string by concatenating all elements.
2. **`JSON.stringify()`**: This method converts the array into a JSON-formatted string, which can be human-readable and easily parseable by other languages.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**`Array.toString()`:**

Pros:

* Lightweight: `toString()` is a simple, lightweight method that doesn't require any additional libraries or overhead.
* Fast: `toString()` is generally faster since it only requires iterating over the elements in the array.

Cons:

* Unreadable: The resulting string can be difficult to read and understand, as it's just a concatenated representation of all elements.
* Limited control: You have no control over the output format or how it's parsed by other languages.

**`JSON.stringify()`:**

Pros:

* Human-readable: JSON-formatted strings are easily readable and parseable by humans and many programming languages.
* Flexible: `JSON.stringify()` can handle nested structures, including objects and arrays.

Cons:

* Heavier: `JSON.stringify()` requires more overhead than `toString()`, especially for large datasets.
* Slower: `JSON.stringify()` is generally slower since it needs to create a tree-like structure to represent the data.

**Library usage**

None of the test cases use any libraries beyond built-in JavaScript functions (e.g., `Array.toString()`, `Math.random()`).

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes being used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may have additional optimizations or extensions for these methods.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to serialize complex data structures in JavaScript:

1. **`JSON.parse()` and `JSON.stringify()` with a custom replacer**: You can use `JSON.parse()` and `JSON.stringify()` with a custom replacer function to create a more readable and controllable serialization process.
2. **Third-party libraries (e.g., `Lodash`)**: Libraries like Lodash provide functions for serializing complex data structures, such as `cloneDeep()` or `toJSON()`.
3. **Custom serialization algorithms**: You can implement your own custom serialization algorithm using JavaScript to achieve specific performance characteristics or control over the output format.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs and might not be suitable for all use cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.3.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toString	411423.6 Ops/sec
JSON.stringify	210478.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

json stringify vs array tostring - complex structures (version: 0)

Tests performance of Array.toString vs JSON.stringify for complex structures (array of objects as opposed to array of primitive types)

Comparing performance of: toString vs JSON.stringify

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toString

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):