Benchmark: String Concat vs JSON.stringify

Script Preparation code:

var availableSizes = [];
for(var i=0;i<10000;i++){
  availableSizes.push({label: i, system: i});
}

Tests:

JSON.stringify
var output=[]; for(var i=0, len=availableSizes.length; i<len; i++){ output.push(JSON.stringify(availableSizes[i])); }
String concat
var output=[], SUPER_DELIM = '|', string; for(var i=0, len=availableSizes.length; i<len; i++){ string = Object.keys(availableSizes[i]).reduce(function(str, key) { return str + key + SUPER_DELIM; }, '|'); output.push(string); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON.stringify
String concat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches for concatenating strings in JavaScript: using `String.concat()` and using `JSON.stringify()`. The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between these two approaches on a dataset of 10,000 objects with varying keys.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **String Concat**: This approach uses the `String.concat()` method to concatenate strings.
2. **JSON.stringify():** This approach uses the `JSON.stringify()` method to convert JavaScript objects into strings and then concatenates them.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **String Concat**
	+ Pros:
		- Easy to implement and understand.
		- Suitable for simple string concatenation scenarios.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slower than other methods due to the overhead of creating new strings.
		- May not handle edge cases well (e.g., null or undefined values).
* **JSON.stringify()**
	+ Pros:
		- Faster than string concatenation for large datasets.
		- Handles edge cases well, including null or undefined values.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be overkill for simple string concatenation scenarios.
		- May not work as expected with certain data types (e.g., arrays).

**Library/Function Used**

* **JSON.stringify()**: This function is a built-in method in JavaScript that converts a value into a JSON string.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned, but it's worth noting that the use of `var` and `for` loops is not considered modern JavaScript best practices. In modern JavaScript, you might consider using `let` or `const` instead of `var`, and ES6 features like arrow functions and template literals.

**Other Alternatives**

* **String.prototype.join()**: This method can be used to concatenate strings in an array. It's often faster than string concatenation using the `+` operator.
* **Array.prototype.map()**: This method can be used to transform each element of an array into a string, which can then be concatenated.

Here's some sample code for each alternative:
```javascript
// String.prototype.join()
const result = availableSizes.map(item => Object.keys(item).reduce((str, key) => str + key, '|')).join('||');

// Array.prototype.map()
const result = availableSizes.map(item => Object.keys(item).reduce((str, key) => str + key, '') + '|');
```
These alternatives can be useful in certain scenarios, but they may not offer significant performance improvements over the original approaches.

I hope this explanation helps!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/68.0.3440.106 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 68 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JSON.stringify	106.9 Ops/sec
String concat	202.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String Concat vs JSON.stringify (version: 0)

String Concat vs JSON.stringify

Comparing performance of: JSON.stringify vs String concat

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JSON.stringify

String concat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):