Benchmark: String Concat vs JSON.stringify

Script Preparation code:

var availableSizes = [];
for(var i=0;i<10000;i++){
  availableSizes.push({label: i, system: i});
}

Tests:

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

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 29 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 29 runs

String concat

1K/s

JSON.stringify

555/s

Fastest: String concat (2.0x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ String concat: 1,116 ops/sec
• JSON.stringify: 555 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

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:

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/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

String concat

5K/s

JSON.stringify

1K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ String concat	4,865 Ops/sec
JSON.stringify	1,356 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 and explain what is being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition specifies two test cases:

1. `String Concat`
2. `JSON.stringify`

These test cases compare the performance of concatenating strings using the `+` operator versus using the `JSON.stringify()` function to convert objects to strings.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code generates an array of 10,000 objects with two properties each: `label` and `system`. These objects will be used as input for both test cases.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark does not require any HTML elements or structures to be rendered.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **JSON.stringify**

This test case uses the `JSON.stringify()` function to convert each object in the `availableSizes` array to a string and then pushes it into an empty output array. The resulting strings are concatenated together using the `+` operator.

Pros of this approach:

* It's straightforward and easy to understand.
* It showcases the performance of the `JSON.stringify()` function as a string converter.

Cons of this approach:

* It may not accurately represent real-world use cases where objects are converted to strings for logging or debugging purposes.
* It might lead to slower performance due to the overhead of converting objects to JSON strings.

2. **String concat**

This test case concatenates the `label` and `system` properties of each object in the `availableSizes` array using a custom delimiter (`SUPER_DELIM`) defined as `' }~\\t|{ '`. The resulting concatenated string is pushed into an empty output array.

Pros of this approach:

* It represents a common use case where strings are concatenated for logging or debugging purposes.
* It showcases the performance of the `+` operator for string concatenation.

Cons of this approach:

* It might not accurately represent real-world use cases where objects are converted to strings for other purposes (e.g., logging, debugging).
* The custom delimiter (`SUPER_DELIM`) may add unnecessary complexity.

**Other Considerations**

When comparing these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* **Overhead**: `JSON.stringify()` adds overhead due to the conversion of objects to JSON strings. This might lead to slower performance in comparison.
* **Delimiters**: Using a custom delimiter for string concatenation can introduce additional complexity and potential issues.

**Libraries and Features**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark, as it only involves basic JavaScript functionality.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require specific explanations.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for string concatenation could include:

* Using a template engine like Handlebars or Mustache.
* Utilizing a library like Lodash's `stringify()` function, which provides more advanced string formatting options.
* Employing a different approach, such as using a buffer or an array of strings to improve performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be relevant to the specific use case being tested in this benchmark.

String Concat vs JSON.stringify (version: 0) Benchmark.js

String Concat vs JSON.stringify

Comparing performance of: `JSON.stringify vs String concat`

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

JSON.stringify

String concat

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 29 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 29 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

String Concat vs JSON.stringify (version: 0) Benchmark.js

String Concat vs JSON.stringify

Comparing performance of: JSON.stringify vs String concat

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

JSON.stringify

String concat

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 29 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 29 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `JSON.stringify vs String concat`