Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
json v string
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
JSON vs String
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
JSON
const code = 'test'; const json = { type: 'host:welcome', data: { code: code } } console.log(JSON.stringify(json))
String
const code = 'test'; const json = `{"type":"host:welcome","data":{"code":"${code}"}}` console.log(json)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
JSON
String
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'll break down the information provided about the MeasureThat.net benchmark. **Benchmark Overview** MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The benchmark in question measures the performance of two approaches: converting a JSON object to a string, and conversely, converting a string to a JSON object. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares two options: 1. **JSON**: This approach uses the `JSON.stringify()` method to convert a JSON object (`json`) to a string. 2. **String**: This approach uses template literals (or string interpolation) to convert a string with placeholders (`$({code})`) replaced with the actual code value. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** * **JSON**: + Pros: Wide browser support, easy to implement, and straightforward to read. + Cons: Can be slower due to the additional overhead of serializing an object. * **String**: + Pros: Can be faster since it avoids the serialization overhead. However, template literals are a relatively recent feature, so not all browsers support them. + Cons: Requires more complex syntax and can be harder to read. **Library Used** The `JSON.stringify()` method is used in the "JSON" approach. This method is part of the ECMAScript Standard Library and is supported by all modern browsers. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** Template literals are used in the "String" approach. These are a relatively recent feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). They provide a more readable way to insert expressions into strings, using the `$()` syntax. **Other Considerations** * The benchmark does not account for other factors that could affect performance, such as object size, complexity, or specific browser features. * It is worth noting that some browsers may have additional optimizations or variations on these methods that are not accounted for in this benchmark. **Alternatives** If you were to create a similar benchmark, you might consider including additional test cases, such as: * Using different serialization formats (e.g., `JSON.parse()` vs. `String.fromCharCode()`) * Testing with larger objects or more complex data structures * Including browsers that do not support template literals or JSON.stringify() * Comparing the performance of these approaches in a web context versus a node.js environment
Related benchmarks:
ITFB. Reinventing JSON parser
json parse vs eval
Object.toString custom vs JSON.stringify
json stringify vs string...
JSON.stringify vs structuredClone (7 KB JSON)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?