Benchmark: String Concat vs JSON.stringify 2

Script Preparation code:

var availableSizes = [];
for(var i=0;i<10000;i++){
  availableSizes.push({ timestamp: new Date().getTime() });
}

Tests:

JSON.stringify
var output=[]; for(var i=0, len=availableSizes.length; i<len; i++){ output.push(JSON.stringify(availableSizes[i].timestamp)); }
String concat
var output=[], SUPER_DELIM = ' }~\t|{ '; for(var i=0, len=availableSizes.length; i<len; i++){ output.push(availableSizes[i].timestamp + ''); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON.stringify
String concat

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 JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: string concatenation and `JSON.stringify()`.

In the "Script Preparation Code", we see that 10,000 timestamps are generated using `new Date().getTime()`. These timestamps will be used to create two arrays: one using string concatenation (`output.push(timestamp + '');`) and another using `JSON.stringify()` (`output.push(JSON.stringify(timestamp))`).

The benchmark aims to determine which approach is faster for large datasets.

**Options compared**

We have two main options being compared:

1. **String Concat**: This method involves creating a new string by concatenating the timestamp with an empty string (`''`) using the `+` operator.
2. **JSON.stringify()**: This method converts the timestamp object into a JSON string using the `JSON.stringify()` function.

**Pros and Cons**

**String Concat:**

Pros:

* Lightweight and efficient, as it only requires creating a new string.
* Easy to implement and understand for developers familiar with JavaScript basics.

Cons:

* Can be slower due to the overhead of creating a new string and potential issues with Unicode character encoding.
* May not perform well when dealing with large datasets or complex data structures.

**JSON.stringify():**

Pros:

* Provides a standardized way of converting objects into strings, making it easier to work with data in different contexts.
* Can handle more complex data types, such as dates and numbers, more efficiently than string concatenation.

Cons:

* May be slower due to the overhead of parsing and encoding the data.
* Requires careful handling of options and configuration, such as `replacer` and `space`, to achieve optimal performance.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, neither library is explicitly used. However, it's worth noting that `JSON.stringify()` relies on the built-in JavaScript JSON object implementation, which provides a standardized way of serializing objects into strings.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. It focuses solely on comparing two basic string manipulation techniques: concatenation and `JSON.stringify()`.

Related benchmarks:

String Concat vs JSON.stringify 2 (version: 0)

String Concat vs JSON.stringify

Comparing performance of: JSON.stringify vs String concat

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JSON.stringify

String concat

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):