Benchmark: very simple stringify vs simple stringify vs JSON.stringify

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;
}

function verySimpleStringify(o) {
    return "{bar:" + o.foo + "}"
}

var testData = {"bar":"foo"}

Tests:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
verySimpleStringify
simpleStringify
JSON.stringify

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.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark defines three different stringification functions:

1. `verySimpleStringify(o)`: This function returns a JSON-encoded string with circular references discarded. It uses a custom JSON.stringify method that checks for object properties and discards them if they are already present in a cache.
2. `simpleStringify(o)`: This function is similar to `JSON.stringify()`, but it doesn't discard circular references. It simply converts the input object into a string without any modifications.
3. `JSON.stringify(testData)` : This line uses the built-in JSON.stringify method from JavaScript's standard library, which also does not discard circular references.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three stringification functions on a single test case:

* `verySimpleStringify`
* `simpleStringify`
* `JSON.stringify`

The options compared are the execution speed and efficiency of each function.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **verySimpleStringify**
	* Pros:
		+ Discards circular references, which can prevent infinite loops in some cases.
		+ Might be faster than other functions because it doesn't need to handle all types of objects.
	* Cons:
		+ Can lead to loss of data if the cache is not sufficient or if the object has a large number of properties.
		+ Custom implementation might have bugs or performance issues that are not present in the standard library.
2. **simpleStringify**
	* Pros:
		+ Does not discard circular references, preserving original data.
		+ Uses built-in functionality, which is well-tested and optimized.
	* Cons:
		+ Might be slower than `verySimpleStringify` because it handles all types of objects without optimization.
3. **JSON.stringify**
	* Pros:
		+ Built-in standard library function, which is widely adopted and tested.
		+ Preserves original data, including circular references.
	* Cons:
		+ Might be slower than other functions due to its overhead.

**Libraries Used:**

None of the provided code uses any external libraries. The `JSON.stringify()` method is a built-in function in JavaScript's standard library.

**Special JS Features or Syntax:**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is included in the standard library.

**Alternatives:**

If you want to compare stringification functions, here are some alternative approaches:

1. Use `String()` instead of `JSON.stringify()`, which will simply concatenate all properties into a single string without any formatting.
2. Implement a custom stringification function that uses a different algorithm or data structure.
3. Compare the performance of different serialization formats, such as binary encoding (e.g., `btoa()` and `atob()`).
4. Compare the performance of stringification functions with other optimization techniques, such as caching or lazy evaluation.

Keep in mind that each benchmark should be tailored to a specific use case or problem domain, so you may want to explore different approaches depending on your requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.164 Safari/537.36 Edg/91.0.864.71

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
verySimpleStringify	4296300.5 Ops/sec
simpleStringify	785889.6 Ops/sec
JSON.stringify	1505813.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

very simple stringify vs simple stringify vs JSON.stringify (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: verySimpleStringify vs simpleStringify vs JSON.stringify

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

verySimpleStringify

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 26 days ago):