Benchmark: simpleStringify vs JSON.stringify 2

Script Preparation code:

function simpleStringify(o) {
  let cache = [];
  let data = JSON.stringify(o, function(key, value) {
    if (typeof value === "object" && value !== null) {
      if (cache.indexOf(value) !== -1) {
        // Circular reference found, discard key
        return;
      }
      // Store value in our collection
      cache.push(value);
    }
    return value;
  });
  cache = null;
  return data;
}
var testData ={}; var i = 0; while(JSON.stringify(testData).length < 150000) { testData[i++] = i };

Tests:

simpleStringify
simpleStringify(testData);
JSON.stringify
JSON.stringify(testData)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
simpleStringify
JSON.stringify

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 world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches to stringifying objects in JavaScript:

1. `JSON.stringify()`: This is a built-in JavaScript function that converts an object into a JSON string, which can be represented as a sequence of characters.
2. A custom implementation called `simpleStringify()`, which is also defined in the benchmark code.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. Using the built-in `JSON.stringify()` method.
2. Implementing a custom stringification function (`simpleStringify()`).

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

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

Pros:

* Portable: The result is always a valid JSON string, which can be easily parsed in other programming languages or by JavaScript engines.
* Efficient: The implementation is optimized for performance, using a proprietary algorithm that minimizes the amount of data generated.

Cons:

* Loss of metadata: When you use `JSON.stringify()`, any prototype properties of an object are discarded, and only own enumerable properties are copied to the resulting string. This can lead to loss of important information.
* Limited control: You have no direct control over how the string is formatted or what data is included.

**`simpleStringify()`:**

Pros:

* Customizable: By storing values in a cache, you can choose which properties to include in the output string and how to handle circular references.
* Control over metadata: With `simpleStringify()`, you have complete control over what data is copied to the resulting string.

Cons:

* Non-portable: The custom implementation may not work correctly in all environments or browsers, as it relies on specific optimizations and caching techniques.
* Less efficient: Implementing a custom stringification function can be slower than using the built-in `JSON.stringify()` method, especially for large objects.

**Library:**

The `JSON` object is a built-in JavaScript library that provides methods for working with JSON data. In this case, it's used to convert an object into a JSON string.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There isn't any special feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different approaches to stringifying objects.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative stringification methods, some options include:

* Using the `toString()` method and manipulating the resulting string by hand.
* Implementing a custom serialization algorithm using bitwise operations or other techniques.
* Using a library like Lodash's `pick` function to selectively copy properties from an object.

However, these alternatives are likely to be less efficient and more error-prone than using the built-in `JSON.stringify()` method or implementing a well-optimized custom stringification function like `simpleStringify()`.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/75.0.3770.142 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 75 on Mac OS X 10.14.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
simpleStringify	493.7 Ops/sec
JSON.stringify	892.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

simpleStringify vs JSON.stringify 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: simpleStringify vs JSON.stringify

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

simpleStringify

JSON.stringify

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):