Benchmark: Generating Complex Keys

Generating Complex Keys (version: 3)

This is an attempt to figure out how to generate complex keys (for use in a `Map` lookup) in the fastest way possible, that can still be parsed at a later date for use in filtering, etc. ex: `'[794456, 2016]'`

Comparing performance of: JSON.stringify (numbers) vs JSON.stringify (strings) vs Template Strings (numbers) vs Template Strings (strings) vs String Concatenation (numbers) vs String Concatenation (strings)

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Script Preparation code:

var numKey1 = 794456;
var numKey2 = 2016;
var strKey1 = '794456';
var strKey2 = '2016'

var out;

​x
 
var numKey1 = 794456;var numKey2 = 2016;var strKey1 = '794456';var strKey2 = '2016'​var out;

Tests:

JSON.stringify (numbers)
out = JSON.stringify([ numKey1, numKey2 ]);
out = JSON.stringify([ numKey1, numKey2 ]);
JSON.stringify (strings)
out = JSON.stringify([ strKey1, strKey2 ]);
out = JSON.stringify([ strKey1, strKey2 ]);
Template Strings (numbers)
out = `[${ numKey1 },${ numKey2 }]`;
out = `[${ numKey1 },${ numKey2 }]`;
Template Strings (strings)
out = `[${ strKey1 },${ strKey2 }]`;
out = `[${ strKey1 },${ strKey2 }]`;
String Concatenation (numbers)
out = '[' + numKey1 + ',' + numKey2 + ']';
out = '[' + numKey1 + ',' + numKey2 + ']';
String Concatenation (strings)
out = '[' + strKey1 + ',' + strKey2 + ']';
out = '[' + strKey1 + ',' + strKey2 + ']';

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
JSON.stringify (numbers)
JSON.stringify (strings)
Template Strings (numbers)
Template Strings (strings)
String Concatenation (numbers)
String Concatenation (strings)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/81.0.4033.2 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 81 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JSON.stringify (numbers)	842754.3 Ops/sec
JSON.stringify (strings)	701421.1 Ops/sec
Template Strings (numbers)	1610547.2 Ops/sec
Template Strings (strings)	1629762.5 Ops/sec
String Concatenation (numbers)	1645775.8 Ops/sec
String Concatenation (strings)	1720763.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

Let's dive into the explanation.

Benchmark Overview

The benchmark measures the performance of different ways to generate complex keys in JavaScript, specifically for use in a Map lookup. The test cases focus on comparing four approaches: string concatenation, template strings, JSON.stringify(), and an alternative syntax (not mentioned in the provided benchmark).

Approaches Compared

String Concatenation: This approach involves using the + operator to concatenate strings or numbers.
- Pros: Simple to implement and widely supported.
- Cons: Can be slower due to string interpolation and possible memory allocation overhead.
Template Strings: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), template strings provide a more readable way to embed expressions inside string literals.
- Pros: More expressive and easier to read, with some performance benefits compared to string concatenation.
- Cons: May require additional compiler or runtime support for older browsers or environments.
JSON.stringify(): This approach uses the JSON.stringify() function to convert an array or object to a JSON string.
- Pros: Efficient and widely supported, as it's a built-in JavaScript function.
- Cons: Can be slower due to overhead of serializing data, especially for large inputs.
Alternative Syntax (not specified): Unfortunately, the provided benchmark doesn't reveal what this alternative syntax is. It might be an experimental or proprietary feature specific to certain environments.

Library Used

None mentioned in the provided benchmark, but JSON.stringify() relies on built-in JavaScript functionality and doesn't require any external libraries.

Special JS Features/Syntax

Template strings were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) as part of the standard language specification.
JSON.stringify() has been available since Internet Explorer 9 (IE9), but its usage is generally considered more modern.

Other Alternatives

For generating complex keys, other approaches might include:

Object literals: Using object literals to create key-value pairs in a Map.
Array methods: Utilizing array methods like map() or reduce() to generate keys.
String formatting: Leveraging string formatting libraries or built-in string formatting features (e.g., using the % operator).
Custom implementations: Developing custom solutions using JavaScript's native data structures and algorithms.

Please note that these alternatives might not be as well-supported or widely tested as the approaches included in this benchmark.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the provided benchmark!

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of different ways to generate complex keys in JavaScript, specifically for use in a `Map` lookup. The test cases focus on comparing four approaches: string concatenation, template strings, `JSON.stringify()`, and an alternative syntax (not mentioned in the provided benchmark).

**Approaches Compared**

1. **String Concatenation**: This approach involves using the `+` operator to concatenate strings or numbers.
	* Pros: Simple to implement and widely supported.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to string interpolation and possible memory allocation overhead.
2. **Template Strings**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), template strings provide a more readable way to embed expressions inside string literals.
	* Pros: More expressive and easier to read, with some performance benefits compared to string concatenation.
	* Cons: May require additional compiler or runtime support for older browsers or environments.
3. **JSON.stringify()**: This approach uses the `JSON.stringify()` function to convert an array or object to a JSON string.
	* Pros: Efficient and widely supported, as it's a built-in JavaScript function.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to overhead of serializing data, especially for large inputs.
4. **Alternative Syntax (not specified)**: Unfortunately, the provided benchmark doesn't reveal what this alternative syntax is. It might be an experimental or proprietary feature specific to certain environments.

**Library Used**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark, but `JSON.stringify()` relies on built-in JavaScript functionality and doesn't require any external libraries.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

* Template strings were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) as part of the standard language specification.
* `JSON.stringify()` has been available since Internet Explorer 9 (IE9), but its usage is generally considered more modern.

**Other Alternatives**

For generating complex keys, other approaches might include:

1. **Object literals**: Using object literals to create key-value pairs in a `Map`.
2. **Array methods**: Utilizing array methods like `map()` or `reduce()` to generate keys.
3. **String formatting**: Leveraging string formatting libraries or built-in string formatting features (e.g., using the `%` operator).
4. **Custom implementations**: Developing custom solutions using JavaScript's native data structures and algorithms.

Please note that these alternatives might not be as well-supported or widely tested as the approaches included in this benchmark.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the provided benchmark!

Related benchmarks: