Benchmark: JSON Stringify ICX

Tests:

Stringify
const a = { prop1: 5, prop2: '6' }; const b = { prop1: 5, prop2: '7' }; JSON.stringify(a) === JSON.stringify(b);
Prop compare
const a = { prop1: 5, prop2: '6' }; const b = { prop1: 5, prop2: '7' }; a.prop1 === b.prop1 && a.prop2 === b.prop2

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Stringify
Prop compare

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain the benchmark results in detail.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases for measuring the performance of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. The benchmarks compare different approaches to testing equality checks and string comparisons.

**Test Cases**

There are only two test cases:

1. **Stringify**: This test case measures the time it takes to perform a deep equality check using `JSON.stringify()` on two objects with identical properties.
2. **Prop Compare**: This test case measures the time it takes to perform an equality check on individual properties of two objects.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is written in JavaScript and consists of two simple expressions:

For the "Stringify" test:
```javascript
const a = { prop1: 5, prop2: '6' };
const b = { prop1: 5, prop2: '7' };
JSON.stringify(a) === JSON.stringify(b);
```
This expression creates two objects `a` and `b` with identical properties but different values for `prop2`. The equality check uses `JSON.stringify()` to create a string representation of each object.

For the "Prop Compare" test:
```javascript
const a = { prop1: 5, prop2: '6' };
const b = { prop1: 5, prop2: '7' };
a.prop1 === b.prop1 && a.prop2 === b.prop2;
```
This expression creates two objects `a` and `b` with identical properties but different values for `prop2`. The equality check uses the `===` operator to compare each property individually.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

For the "Stringify" test:

* **Pros**: This approach is simple and easy to understand. It directly tests the performance of the `JSON.stringify()` function.
* **Cons**: This approach can be slower due to the additional overhead of creating a string representation of each object.

For the "Prop Compare" test:

* **Pros**: This approach is more accurate, as it checks individual properties for equality. However, it may be slower due to the comparison overhead.
* **Cons**: This approach requires careful consideration of property ordering and data type matching to produce correct results.

**Library Usage**

There is no library usage in these benchmark definitions. The `JSON.stringify()` function is a built-in JavaScript method.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmarks, such as async/await, promises, or modern ES modules.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to measuring performance could include:

* Using a different equality check library, such as Lodash's `isEqual()` function.
* Measuring the time it takes to iterate over an array or object and perform individual comparisons.
* Using a benchmarking framework like Benchmark.js or V8 Perf to measure performance in a more structured way.

Overall, these benchmarks provide a simple and straightforward way to compare the performance of different approaches to equality checks and string comparisons in JavaScript.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Stringify	1234165.9 Ops/sec
Prop compare	82458272.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JSON Stringify ICX (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Stringify vs Prop compare

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Stringify

Prop compare

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):