Benchmark: object_hash bench

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var context2 = {
    title: 'fish',
    position: 1,
    array: [1, 2, 3, [4, 5, 6]],
    array2: [{}, {}, {}],
}

Tests:

JSON.stringify
JSON.stringify(context2) === JSON.stringify(context2)
sha1
objectHash(context2, {algorithm: 'sha1'}) === objectHash(context2, {algorithm: 'sha1'})
md5
objectHash(context2, {algorithm: 'md5'}) === objectHash(context2, {algorithm: 'md5'})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON.stringify
sha1
md5

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.

I'll break down the provided JSON data for you, explaining what's being tested and the pros and cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two JavaScript functions: `JSON.stringify()` and `objectHash()`. The latter function is likely a custom implementation or an alternative to the former. Both functions are used to compute a hash value for a given object, but they use different algorithms (SHA-1 and MD5, respectively).

**Options Compared**

There are three test cases:

1. **JSON.stringify**: This function converts a JavaScript object into a string representation, which can be used to compute a hash value.
2. **objectHash (SHA-1)**: This function computes a hash value for an object using the SHA-1 algorithm.
3. **objectHash (MD5)**: Similar to the previous one, but uses the MD5 algorithm instead.

**Pros and Cons**

* **JSON.stringify**: Pros:
	+ Widely supported and implemented in most browsers.
	+ Easy to understand and implement.
* Cons:
	+ May not be optimized for performance or security.
	+ Can produce different results due to browser-specific implementations.
* **objectHash (SHA-1)**: Pros:
	+ Optimized for performance, as it's a custom implementation.
	+ Provides better security guarantees than JSON.stringify.
* Cons:
	+ May require more manual effort to implement and maintain.
	+ Less widely supported or implemented in browsers.
* **objectHash (MD5)**: Similar pros and cons as the SHA-1 version.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, two libraries are used:

1. `object-hash` (not a standard library): This is a custom implementation of the `objectHash()` function, which computes hash values for objects using various algorithms (SHA-1 and MD5). The library is loaded via a CDN link.
2. No other standard libraries or frameworks are used in this benchmark.

**Special JavaScript Features or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The code snippets provided are relatively simple and do not involve any advanced JavaScript concepts, such as async/await, Promises, or decorators.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in alternative hash functions or methods for computing object hashes, some popular options include:

1. **crypto-js**: A library that provides a wide range of encryption and hashing algorithms, including SHA-1 and MD5.
2. **crypto**: The built-in cryptography module in Node.js, which provides various hashing algorithms, including SHA-1 and MD5.
3. **hashing libraries like johnny-five or hash-stream**: These libraries provide optimized implementations of hash functions for specific use cases.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, security guarantees, or ease of use compared to the `objectHash()` function used in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

object_hash bench (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: JSON.stringify vs sha1 vs md5

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

JSON.stringify

sha1

md5

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):