Benchmark: filter-includes vs JSON.stringify Equality Comparison for Shallow Array of Strings.

Script Preparation code:

window.foo = ['cat', 'dog', 'bird'];
window.bar = ['cat', 'dog', 'bird'];

Tests:

filter-includes
window.foo.filter((x) => !window.bar.includes(x)).length === 0
JSON.stringify
JSON.stringify(window.foo) === JSON.stringify(window.bar);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
filter-includes
JSON.stringify

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 break down the benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to check if two arrays are equal: `filter-includes` and `JSON.stringify`.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Filter-includes**: This approach uses the `includes()` method on one array (`window.bar`) and iterates through the other array (`window.foo`) using a callback function (`(x) => !x.includes(window.bar)`). The length of the resulting array is then checked for equality to zero.
2. **JSON.stringify Equality Comparison**: This approach converts both arrays to strings using `JSON.stringify()` and compares these strings for equality.

**Pros and Cons**

**Filter-includes:**

Pros:

* Efficient use of memory, as only one array needs to be iterated through.
* Can take advantage of the browser's optimized `includes()` method.

Cons:

* May perform slower due to the overhead of the callback function.
* Requires two separate arrays to be created (one for filtering and one for comparison).

**JSON.stringify Equality Comparison:**

Pros:

* Fast conversion of arrays to strings, making it suitable for large datasets.
* Easy to implement, as no additional code is required.

Cons:

* May not work correctly for non-ASCII characters or special cases like NaNs or Infinity.
* Requires both arrays to be converted to strings, which can be memory-intensive.

**Library Used**

No library is explicitly used in this benchmark. However, the `includes()` method is a built-in JavaScript function that relies on the browser's optimized implementation.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no specific special feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. The code uses basic JavaScript features like functions, arrays, and string concatenation.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement this benchmark from scratch, other alternatives for checking array equality could be:

* Using `slice()` and `indexOf()` methods.
* Implementing a custom loop that compares each element of one array with every element of the other array.
* Utilizing modern JavaScript features like `Set` data structures or `reduce()` methods.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have varying performance characteristics depending on the specific use case.

As for benchmarking tools, MeasureThat.net is a great resource for comparing the performance of different JavaScript implementations. Other popular benchmarking tools include:

* Benchmark.js
* jsPerf (now deprecated)
* WebPageTest
* browserbench

These tools provide a more comprehensive set of features and options for measuring JavaScript performance, but may require additional setup and configuration.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:103.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/103.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 103 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
filter-includes	911201.1 Ops/sec
JSON.stringify	1208214.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

filter-includes vs JSON.stringify Equality Comparison for Shallow Array of Strings. (version: 0)

Test on isEqual performance

Comparing performance of: filter-includes vs JSON.stringify

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

filter-includes

JSON.stringify

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):