Benchmark: Fast & frequent comparisons

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

window.foo = [{accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'merp']}, {accessPath: 'derp', ancestors: ['blah', 'derp']}];
window.foo = [{accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'derp.merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'blah']}, {accessPath: 'merp', ancestors: ['blah', 'merp']}, {accessPath: 'derp', ancestors: ['blah', 'changed']}];

async function H(m) {
  const msgUint8 = new TextEncoder().encode(m)                       
  const hashBuffer = await crypto.subtle.digest('SHA-1', msgUint8)          
  const hashArray = Array.from(new Uint8Array(hashBuffer))                    
  const hashHex = hashArray.map(b => b.toString(16).padStart(2, '0')).join('')
  return hashHex;
}

async function compare(a, b) {
  return await H(a) === await H(b);
}

Tests:

JSON.stringify
JSON.stringify(window.foo) === JSON.stringify(window.bar);
H
compare(window.foo, window.bar)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON.stringify
H

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 dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two individual test cases:

1. `JSON.stringify(window.foo) === JSON.stringify(window.bar);`
2. `compare(window.foo, window.bar)`

These test cases are designed to compare the contents of two objects using different approaches.

**Test Case 1: `JSON.stringify`**

This test case compares the results of calling `JSON.stringify()` on two different objects, `window.foo` and `window.bar`. The comparison is done by checking if the resulting strings from both `JSON.stringify()` calls are equal.

**Pros and Cons**

Using `JSON.stringify()` for comparison has its pros and cons:

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward
* Works well for most cases

Cons:

* Can be slow for large objects, as it recursively traverses the object graph and converts each property to a string.
* May not work correctly with certain types of objects or data structures.

**Test Case 2: `compare` function**

This test case uses a custom `compare` function that takes two objects as input and returns a boolean indicating whether they are equal. The comparison is done by hashing the contents of both objects using the SHA-1 algorithm and then comparing the resulting hash values.

Pros:

* Can be faster than `JSON.stringify()` for large objects, as it avoids the overhead of converting each property to a string.
* May work correctly with certain types of objects or data structures that can't be compared using `JSON.stringify()`

Cons:

* Requires additional libraries and dependencies (e.g., Web Cryptography API) to implement the hashing algorithm.
* Can be more complex to understand and maintain, especially for those without experience with hash functions.

**Library: Lodash**

The benchmark includes a reference to the Lodash library, which is used in the `Html Preparation Code` section. Specifically, the line `<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>` imports the `lodash` module, which provides various utility functions, including `stringify()`.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark that would require a deep understanding of advanced concepts like decorators, async/await, or ES6+ features. The code is relatively straightforward and focuses on demonstrating the comparison of two objects using different approaches.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to comparing objects could include:

* Using a dedicated object comparison library (e.g., `ObjectComparer`).
* Implementing a custom comparison function that uses a different algorithm or data structure.
* Using a testing framework like Jest or Mocha, which provides built-in support for comparing objects.

However, these alternatives would likely require additional setup and configuration, and may not be as straightforward to understand and maintain as the `JSON.stringify()` and `compare` approaches used in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Fast & frequent comparisons (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JSON.stringify vs H

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JSON.stringify

H

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):