Benchmark: Object hash vs JSON stringify

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="
https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/object-hash@3.0.0/dist/object_hash.min.js
"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.data = {
    prop1: {
        a: 1,
        b: 'a'
    },
    prop2: {
        a: 1,
        b: 'a'
    },
    prop3: {
        a: 1,
        b: 'a'
    },
    prop4: {
        a: 1,
        b: 'a'
    },
    prop5: {
        a: 1,
        b: 'a'
    },
};

Tests:

Object hash
objectHash(window.data);
JSON.stringify
JSON.stringify(window.data);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object hash
JSON.stringify

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 16 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:150.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/150.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 150 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Object hash	5958.5 Ops/sec
JSON.stringify	1278261.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. **"Object hash"**: This test case calls the `objectHash` function from the `object-hash` library, passing in the `window.data` object as an argument.
2. **"JSON.stringify"**: This test case calls the `JSON.stringify` function, also passing in the `window.data` object as an argument.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Using a dedicated hashing library (`object-hash`)
* Using the built-in `Stringify` method of JavaScript's native JSON API (`JSON.stringify`)

**Pros and Cons**

### Object-Hash Library

Pros:

* Purpose-built for performance: The `object-hash` library is optimized for speed, making it suitable for high-performance use cases.
* Simplified usage: The library provides a simple interface for hashing objects, reducing code complexity.

Cons:

* External dependency: Using an external library adds an additional dependency to the benchmark, which may not be desirable for some users.
* Potential overhead: Including an extra file may introduce minor performance overhead due to HTTP requests and loading times.

### JSON.stringify

Pros:

* Native implementation: The `JSON.stringify` method is a built-in part of JavaScript's native API, eliminating the need for external dependencies.
* Low overhead: Using the native method has negligible overhead compared to including an external library.

Cons:

* Performance limitations: The `JSON.stringify` method may not be as optimized or efficient as a dedicated hashing library like `object-hash`.
* Complexity: Implementing a custom hash function can add complexity and code maintenance burden for users.

**Library Description**

The `object-hash` library is a lightweight, purpose-built JavaScript library designed specifically for hashing objects. Its primary purpose is to provide fast and efficient object hashing capabilities, making it suitable for applications requiring high-performance data integrity checks or encryption.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

In this benchmark, the following special JavaScript features are used:

* The `window.data` object is defined in a separate script preparation code block.
* The `objectHash` function from the `object-hash` library is called to perform the hashing operation.
* The `JSON.stringify` method is used to create a JSON string representation of the input data.

These features and syntax are not specific to this benchmark, but rather common practices in JavaScript development.

Related benchmarks:

Object hash vs JSON stringify (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object hash vs JSON.stringify

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object hash

JSON.stringify

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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