Benchmark: Object.keys.length vs JSON.stringify 2

Script Preparation code:

var testData = { toto: 'titi' };

Tests:

object keys
Object.keys(testData).length === 0
json stringify
JSON.stringify(testData) === '{}';

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
object keys
json stringify

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
object keys	86408152.0 Ops/sec
json stringify	19369732.0 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 provided JSON benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark defines two test cases:

1. `object keys`: This test case checks if the length of the `Object.keys()` method is 0 for a given test data object `testData`. In other words, it verifies that the object has no own enumerable properties.
2. `json stringify`: This test case checks if the result of calling `JSON.stringify()` on the `testData` object is equal to an empty string (`''`).

**Script Preparation Code:**

The script preparation code defines a variable `testData` with a single property `toto` and its value set to `'titi'`. This suggests that the benchmark is testing how JavaScript handles objects with no properties.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. Using the `Object.keys()` method to get the length of the object's enumerable properties.
2. Using `JSON.stringify()` to serialize the object and check if its string representation is an empty string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Object.keys()**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and efficient, as it uses a native method that can access property metadata directly.
		+ Can be used for other purposes beyond just checking the object's length.
	* Cons:
		+ May not work correctly if the object has non-enumerable properties or if the `Object.keys()` method is overridden by a custom implementation.
2. **JSON.stringify()**:
	* Pros:
		+ Portable and works in all browsers, as it uses a standardized serialization format.
		+ Can be used for serializing objects to strings in other contexts beyond just benchmarking.
	* Cons:
		+ Slower than `Object.keys()` due to the overhead of serialization.
		+ May not work correctly if the object contains cyclic references or is serialized incorrectly.

**Library and Purpose:**

The `JSON.stringify()` method is a built-in JavaScript function that converts an object into a string representation. Its purpose is to serialize objects to strings, which can be useful in various scenarios, such as:

* Serializing objects to save them to storage or send over the network.
* Generating human-readable representations of complex data structures.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is simple and follows standard JavaScript practices.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you wanted to implement a similar benchmark, you could use other methods to check the object's length or serialize it to a string. Some alternatives might include:

* Using `Object.keys()` with a custom implementation that returns the length of all properties (including non-enumerable ones).
* Using a library like Lodash's `isEmpty` function to check if an object is empty.
* Using a library like JSON.stringify() from another language, such as Java or C#, for serialization.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide the same performance or portability as the original implementation.

Related benchmarks:

Object.keys.length vs JSON.stringify 2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: object keys vs json stringify

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

object keys

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):