Benchmark: isEqual vs stringify

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.foo = {
  name: 'Ram',
  age: 20,
  location: {
    city: 'NY',
    state: 'NY'
  }
};
window.bar = {
  name: 'Ram',
  age: 20,
  location: {
    city: 'NY',
    state: 'NY'
  }
};

Tests:

isEqual
_.isEqual(window.foo, window.bar)
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
isEqual
stringify

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 113 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
isEqual	1314708.9 Ops/sec
stringify	1321448.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

The provided benchmark is designed to compare two approaches: `_.isEqual` from Lodash and manual string comparison using `JSON.stringify`. Both approaches aim to determine if two objects are equal.

**_.isEqual (Lodash)**

`_.isEqual` is a function from the popular utility library Lodash. Its purpose is to check if two values are deeply equal, considering all properties of both objects. This includes nested objects, arrays, and even functions.

Pros:

* Handles complex object structures with ease
* Supports equality checking for functions and dates
* Reduces boilerplate code by providing a concise way to compare objects

Cons:

* Introduces additional dependency (Lodash) and potential overhead due to its complexity
* May not be the most optimized solution, as it's designed for general-purpose use rather than raw performance

**Manual String Comparison**

The manual approach involves converting both objects to strings using `JSON.stringify` and then comparing these strings. This method only checks the equality of object properties' values, without considering their structure or type.

Pros:

* Lightweight and efficient, as it uses built-in stringification
* Does not introduce additional dependencies

Cons:

* May not work correctly for complex objects or nested structures
* Requires manual handling of specific data types (e.g., dates, functions) to ensure accurate comparison

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* **Performance**: Manual string comparison is likely to be faster due to its simplicity and lack of additional dependencies. However, `_.isEqual` might still be competitive for most use cases.
* **Code Readability and Maintainability**: `_.isEqual` provides a clear and concise way to compare objects, reducing the likelihood of errors or inconsistencies in your codebase.
* **Complexity Tolerance**: If you're working with complex object structures, `_.isEqual` is likely a better choice due to its ability to handle nested properties.

Now, let's take a look at the provided benchmark results:

The latest benchmark result shows that `JSON.stringify` (the manual approach) outperforms `_.isEqual` in terms of executions per second. This might be attributed to the optimized stringification process used by JavaScript engines for this specific use case.

When working with MeasureThat.net, you can experiment with different approaches and test cases to determine which one works best for your specific requirements. Keep in mind that Lodash is a popular and widely-used library, so its inclusion as a baseline provides valuable insight into the performance characteristics of both methods.

Related benchmarks:

isEqual vs stringify (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: isEqual vs stringify

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

isEqual

stringify

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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