Benchmark: Compration of objects

Script Preparation code:

var dd = {q: 1, s: '2', e: {q: 1, l: 2, f: [2,2]}};
var ll = {q: 1, s: '2', e: {q: 1, l: 2, f: [2,2]}};

Tests:

dd.toString().indexOf(ll.toString())
dd.toString().indexOf(ll.toString())
dd.toString() === ll.toString()
dd.toString() === ll.toString()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
dd.toString().indexOf(ll.toString())
dd.toString() === ll.toString()

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 what is being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Script Preparation Code` section provides two JavaScript objects, `dd` and `ll`, which are identical except for the property name of an object inside another object (`e`). The objects have a nested array.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Comparison using `indexOf()`**: This test case measures the execution time of finding the index of `ll.toString()` within `dd.toString()`.
2. **Equality comparison**: This test case measures the execution time of comparing `dd.toString()` with `ll.toString()` for equality.

**Options Compared**

The main option being compared is:

* **Using `indexOf()` vs Direct String Comparison**
	+ Pros:
		- `indexOf()` can handle more cases, such as finding the index of a substring within a string.
		- Can be useful when dealing with complex data structures or nested objects.
	+ Cons:
		- May introduce unnecessary overhead due to string manipulation and indexing operations.
		- Can lead to slower performance for simple equality checks.

**Pros and Cons**

Using `indexOf()` can be beneficial in certain scenarios, but it might not be the most efficient choice for simple equality comparisons. Direct string comparison is generally faster and more straightforward.

On the other hand, direct string comparison can have limitations, such as:

* Not handling substring searches
* Being less flexible when dealing with complex data structures

**Libraries Used**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definition or test cases.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There is no mention of any special JavaScript features or syntax being used. The code appears to be standard JavaScript.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, consider:

* Using a library like `lodash` which provides functions for working with strings and objects, such as `indexOf()` and `isEqual()`.
* Implementing custom string comparison algorithms that take advantage of the specific characteristics of your data.
* Experimenting with different optimization techniques, such as memoization or caching.

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches will depend on the specifics of your use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/79.0.3945.117 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 79 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
dd.toString().indexOf(ll.toString())	5570448.0 Ops/sec
dd.toString() === ll.toString()	5104808.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Compration of objects (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: dd.toString().indexOf(ll.toString()) vs dd.toString() === ll.toString()

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

dd.toString().indexOf(ll.toString())

dd.toString() === ll.toString()

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):