Benchmark: Object vs toString

Tests:

Object
Object({}) instanceof Number
Object.prototype.toString
Object.prototype.toString.call({}) == '[object Object]'

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object
Object.prototype.toString

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark created on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark tests two different approaches to convert an object to its string representation using either the `Number` constructor or the `toString()` method of `Object.prototype`.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Using `Number` constructor**: In this approach, a new `Number` object is created from the input object. This involves creating a new object and assigning it to a variable.
2. **Using `toString()` method**: In this approach, the `toString()` method of `Object.prototype` is called on the input object.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Using `Number` constructor**:
	+ Pros: Simple and straightforward. No additional overhead from prototype methods.
	+ Cons: Creates a new object, which can be slower than using a built-in method like `toString()`.
* **Using `toString()` method**:
	+ Pros: Faster and more efficient since it leverages the built-in `toString()` method of `Object.prototype`. This is because the engine can optimize this call.
	+ Cons: May not work as expected for objects that don't have a meaningful string representation.

**Library and Purpose**

In the benchmark, the `Object.prototype` library is used. The `Object.prototype.toString()` method returns a string representing the type of an object or `null` if the object doesn't have a prototype. This method is part of the JavaScript standard library and provides a way to convert objects to strings in a standardized manner.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two simple approaches to string conversion.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to create your own JavaScript microbenchmark, consider the following alternatives:

1. MeasureThat.net: Create a new benchmark on MeasureThat.net with their tool.
2. jsPerf.com: Use jsPerf.com to create and share benchmarks.
3. Benchpress.js: Write custom benchmarks using Benchpress.js.
4. Micro-benchmarking libraries like benchmark.js or fast-bench.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different features, complexity levels, and ease of use compared to MeasureThat.net's tool.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/74.0.3729.169 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 74 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Object	2360723.8 Ops/sec
Object.prototype.toString	3861735.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Object vs toString (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object vs Object.prototype.toString

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object

Object.prototype.toString

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):