Benchmark: stringify & parse vs filter

Script Preparation code:

var args = {
    prop1: [],
    prop2: []
}

function getRandomInt(min, max) {
    min = Math.ceil(min);
    max = Math.floor(max);
    return Math.floor(Math.random() * (max - min) + min); // The maximum is exclusive and the minimum is inclusive
}

for (var key in args) {
    var num = getRandomInt(100, 1000);
    for (var i = 0; i < num; i++) {
        args[key].push(Math.random());
    }
}

Tests:

stringify parse
var filteredArgs = Object.values(JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(args))); var total = filteredArgs.flat().length;
filter
var filteredArgs = Object.values(args).filter(arg => arg?.length > 0); var total = filteredArgs.flat().length;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
stringify parse
filter

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Goal:**
The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches for filtering and processing an array of random numbers.

**Approaches Compared:**

1. **Stringify & Parse**: This approach involves converting the entire object `args` into a string using `JSON.stringify()`, parsing it back into a JSON object, and then extracting its values using `Object.values()` and iterating over them.
2. **Filter**: This approach uses the `filter()` method to directly filter out empty arrays from the `args` object.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Stringify & Parse:**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be useful for processing objects with complex structures, as it serializes the entire object.
	* Cons:
		+ Involves extra steps (stringification, parsing) that can lead to slower performance compared to a direct filtering approach.
2. **Filter:**
	* Pros:
		+ Directly filters out empty arrays without adding unnecessary overhead.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires that the `args` object has an array structure.

**Library Used:**
None in this specific benchmark, but `JSON` is used for stringification and parsing.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
The benchmark uses the `filter()` method, which is a standard JavaScript API. No special features or syntax are required to understand this benchmark.

Now, let's discuss other alternatives:

* **Array.prototype.filter() with callback function**: Instead of using `args[key].length > 0`, you could use a callback function to filter out empty arrays.
* **Map and reduce():** Another approach would be to use the `Map` API to create a map from the object values, and then use `reduce()` to sum up the lengths of non-empty arrays.

Overall, this benchmark is focused on comparing the performance of two straightforward approaches for filtering an array. The results can help developers choose between these methods depending on their specific use case requirements.

Related benchmarks:

stringify & parse vs filter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: stringify parse vs filter

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

stringify parse

filter

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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