Benchmark: json stringify vs array join without parameter

Script Preparation code:

function moreData(arr, left) {
  if(left === 0) return arr;
  else {
    arr.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 256));
  	return moreData(arr, left - 1);
  }
}
function makeTestData() { return moreData([], 4); }

Tests:

join
makeTestData().join()
JSON.stringify
JSON.stringify(makeTestData());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
join
JSON.stringify

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Android 13; Mobile; rv:108.0) Gecko/108.0 Firefox/108.0

Browser/OS: Firefox Mobile 108 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
join	4368348.0 Ops/sec
JSON.stringify	2876948.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark and explore what's being tested.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches: using `Array.join()` versus `JSON.stringify()`. The goal is to measure which method is faster for converting an array of numbers to a string.

**Options Compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. **`Array.join()`**: This method concatenates all elements of the array into a single string, using the specified separator (in this case, an empty string `''`).
2. **`JSON.stringify()`**: This method converts an object (or in this case, an array) to a JSON string.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **`Array.join()`**:
    *   Pros: Efficient for small arrays, as it only requires two iterations through the array elements.
    *   Cons: Can be slow for large arrays due to the overhead of concatenating strings. Also, it doesn't support non-string elements in the array.
*   **JSON.stringify():**
    *   Pros: Supports non-string elements in the array and is generally faster for large arrays since it uses a more efficient algorithm that avoids string concatenation.
    *   Cons: Can be slower than `Array.join()` for small arrays due to the overhead of serializing the entire object.

**Library and Its Purpose**

In this benchmark, there's no explicitly mentioned library. However, we can infer that `JSON.stringify()` relies on the built-in JavaScript `JSON` object, which is a part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Special JS Features or Syntax (Not Applicable in This Case)**

There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require additional explanation.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark, you might consider alternative approaches:

*   **Using `Array.prototype.reduce()`**: Instead of `join()`, you could use `reduce()` to concatenate the array elements into a string.
*   **Using `String.fromCharCode(...)`**: If you wanted to avoid using `JSON.stringify()`, you could use `String.fromCharCode()` to create a string from individual characters.

Here's an example implementation:

```javascript
const makeTestData = () => {
    const arr = [];
    for (let i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
        arr.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 256));
    }
    return arr;
};

function testJoin() {
    const testData = makeTestData();
    const result = testData.reduce((acc, curr) => acc + curr, '');
    console.log(result);
}

function testStringify() {
    const testData = makeTestData();
    const result = JSON.stringify(testData);
    console.log(result);
}
```

Keep in mind that while these alternatives might be interesting to consider, they're not necessarily the best choices for this specific benchmark.

The original implementation of `Array.join()` and `JSON.stringify()` remains a good choice due to their performance characteristics and simplicity.

Related benchmarks:

json stringify vs array join without parameter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: join vs JSON.stringify

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

join

JSON.stringify

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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