Benchmark: json stringify vs array join (string)

Script Preparation code:

function moreData(arr, left) {
  if(left === 0) return arr;
  else {
    arr.push("Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing");
  	return moreData(arr, left - 1);
  }
}
function makeTestData() { return moreData([], 4); }

Tests:

join
makeTestData().join('-')
JSON.stringify
JSON.stringify(makeTestData());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
join
JSON.stringify

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:150.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/150.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 150 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
join	7244341.0 Ops/sec
JSON.stringify	3756438.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark created on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark tests two different approaches for creating a string: using the `Array.prototype.join()` method and using the `JSON.stringify()` function.

**What is being tested?**

The test measures the performance of these two approaches in generating a string of a specific format.

**Options compared:**

1. **`Array.prototype.join()`**: This method concatenates all elements of an array into a single string, separated by a specified separator (in this case, a hyphen `-`).
2. **`JSON.stringify()`**: This function converts a JavaScript object or value to a JSON string.

**Pros and cons:**

1. **`Array.prototype.join()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more efficient for large arrays since it avoids the overhead of creating a new string.
		+ Can be faster when used with a specific separator (in this case, `-`).
	* Cons:
		+ May require manual management of the separator character(s), which can add complexity.
		+ Not suitable for all types of data, as it's designed specifically for arrays.
2. **`JSON.stringify()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can handle a wide range of JavaScript data types (objects, numbers, booleans, etc.).
		+ Can be more readable and maintainable when working with complex objects.
	* Cons:
		+ May incur additional overhead due to the conversion process.
		+ Can produce larger strings for simple data types (e.g., `JSON.stringify(42)` would produce `"42"`).

**Library/Function usage:**

In this benchmark, the following libraries/functions are used:

1. **`Array.prototype.join()`**: A built-in JavaScript method for concatenating array elements.
2. **`JSON.stringify()`**: A built-in JavaScript function for converting JavaScript values to a JSON string.

No other libraries or functions are used in this benchmark.

**Special JS feature:**

There is no specific JavaScript syntax or feature being tested in this benchmark, as both approaches use standard language constructs (arrays and objects).

**Other alternatives:**

If you need alternative ways to concatenate strings or convert data to a JSON-like format, consider the following options:

1. **`Array.prototype.reduce()`**: Instead of using `join()`, you can use `reduce()` to concatenate array elements into a single string.
2. **`String.prototype.concat()`**: This method concatenates two strings and returns a new string. You can use it with an array of strings to produce the desired result.
3. **`Array.map()`**: You can use `map()` to convert each element in the array to a string, then concatenate them using `join()`.
4. **Custom implementation**: If you need more control over the string concatenation process or want to optimize for performance, consider writing your own custom function.

Keep in mind that the choice of method depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

json stringify vs array join (string) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: join vs JSON.stringify

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

join

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):