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;

Tests:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

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!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 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

Related benchmarks:

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

JSON.stringify (numbers)

JSON.stringify (strings)

Template Strings (numbers)

Template Strings (strings)

String Concatenation (numbers)

String Concatenation (strings)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):