Benchmark: JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())

Tests:

JSON
JSON.parse(JSON.stringify({a: 444}))
Assign
Object.assign({a: 444})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON
Assign

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the execution speed of two different JavaScript constructs:

1. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify({a: 444}))**: This expression creates a new object by cloning an existing one using `JSON.parse()` and then converting it to a string using `JSON.stringify()`. The resulting string is then parsed back into an object.
2. **Object.assign({a: 444})**: This expression uses the `Object.assign()` method to create a new object with a single property, `a`, set to 444.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches for each construct:

* For JSON.parse(JSON.stringify()):
	+ Using `JSON.parse()` and then `JSON.stringify()`
	+ Using `JSON.parse()` and then `Object.assign()`
* For Object.assign():
	+ Using `Object.assign()` directly
	+ Using a loop to create the object (not used in this benchmark)

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())**
	+ Using `JSON.parse()` and then `JSON.stringify()`:
		- Pros: Creates a new object without modifying the original one.
		- Cons: Can be slow due to string parsing and creation.
	* Using `JSON.parse()` and then `Object.assign()`:
		- Pros: Uses more efficient methods for creating objects.
		- Cons: Still creates an intermediate string, which can be slower.
2. **Object.assign()**
	* Using `Object.assign()` directly:
		+ Pros: Creates a new object without modifying the original one and is relatively fast.
		- Cons: None significant in this context.

**Library usage**

None of the benchmark tests use external libraries. The test cases rely on built-in JavaScript methods and operators.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in these benchmarks, as they only utilize basic constructs like `JSON.parse()`, `Object.assign()`, and object literals.

**Other alternatives**

If the authors of MeasureThat.net had explored other approaches, some alternatives might have included:

* Using `Object.create()` instead of `Object.assign()` for creating new objects.
* Utilizing native JavaScript methods like `Object.fromEntries()` or `Array.from()` for object creation.
* Implementing a custom cloning mechanism using recursive functions or other techniques.

However, these alternative approaches are not currently used in the benchmark.

I hope this explanation helps software engineers understand the basics of the MeasureThat.net benchmarks!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; 6201) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.114 Mobile Safari/537.36 OPR/64.2.3282.60128

Browser/OS: Opera Mobile 64 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JSON	128297.1 Ops/sec
Assign	616455.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JSON.parse(JSON.stringify()) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JSON vs Assign

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JSON

Assign

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):