Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
ArrayBuffer vs JSON serialization 5M
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
JSON serialization vs ArrayBuffer serialization
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
JSON serialization
const arr = Array.from({ length: 5000000 }).map(() => Math.random()); const serialized = JSON.stringify(arr); const deserialized = JSON.parse(serialized); deserialized.map(x => 0.0); const serializedAgain = JSON.stringify(deserialized);
ArrayBuffer serialization
const arr = Array.from({ length: 5000000 }).map(() => Math.random()); const buffer = new ArrayBuffer(arr.length * 4); const view = new Float32Array(buffer, 0, 4); view.map((_, idx) => arr[idx]); view.map(() => 0.0); const view2 = new Float32Array(buffer, 0, 4);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
JSON serialization
ArrayBuffer serialization
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the benchmark. **Overview** The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks: `ArrayBuffer vs JSON serialization 5M`. The benchmark measures the performance difference between serializing an array using `JSON.stringify` and `ArrayBuffer`. **Options being compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **JSON serialization**: This method uses the built-in `JSON.stringify()` function to serialize the array. 2. **ArrayBuffer serialization**: This method uses the `ArrayBuffer` object and a `Float32Array` view to serialize the array. **Pros and cons of each approach** * **JSON serialization**: + Pros: Widely supported, easy to implement, and compatible with most browsers. + Cons: Can be slower due to overhead from stringifying and parsing JSON. * **ArrayBuffer serialization**: + Pros: Can be faster for large datasets, as it avoids the overhead of stringification and parsing. However, it requires manual management of memory buffers and views. + Cons: Requires a good understanding of low-level JavaScript and buffer management. **Library usage** In the `JSON serialization` test case, the `JSON` library is used implicitly through the `JSON.stringify()` function. This library provides a standard way to serialize and parse JSON data in JavaScript. **Special JS feature/syntax** There doesn't appear to be any special or exotic JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmark tests. The code is relatively straightforward and uses standard JavaScript constructs. **Other alternatives** If you were to implement your own serialization method for the `ArrayBuffer` test case, you could consider using other libraries like: * `TypedArray` buffer format (e.g., `Float32Array`, `Uint8Array`) * Custom binary serialization formats (e.g., `lz-string`, `lz-compress`) * Other buffer management techniques (e.g., `WebAssembly`) However, these alternatives would likely require significant changes to the benchmark code and might not provide a straightforward comparison with the existing `JSON` serialization method.
Related benchmarks:
Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone vs recursiveDeepCopy vs JSON clone 10kb json
Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone vs JSON.stringify with array values
Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone vs JSON Parse (deep object)
Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone vs JSON.parse + JSON.stringify but with big data
Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone vs JSON Parse (100 000 objects)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?