Benchmark: JSON.stringify vs Destructuring

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {a: "hello", c: "test", po: 33, arr: [1, 2, 3, 4], anotherObj: {a: 33, str: "whazzup"}};

Tests:

JSON.stringify
const str2 = JSON.stringify(obj);
Destructuring
const obj2 = Object.assign({}, obj);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 13 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 13 runs

Destructuring

3.8M/s

JSON.stringify

2.3M/s

Fastest: Destructuring (1.7x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Destructuring: 3,847,632 ops/sec
• JSON.stringify: 2,299,273 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
Destructuring

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/85.0.4183.127 Safari/537.36 OPR/60.3.3004.55692

Browser/OS: Opera 60 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Destructuring

442K/s

JSON.stringify

92K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Destructuring	442,181 Ops/sec
JSON.stringify	92,066 Ops/sec

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!

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between using `JSON.stringify()` and destructuring (also known as object literal syntax) when creating a complex object.

**Options being compared:**

1. **`JSON.stringify()`**: A built-in JavaScript method that converts a JavaScript object to a JSON string, which can be used for various purposes like storing data in a file or sending it over the network.
2. **Destructuring (Object literal syntax)**: A way of creating objects using an existing object as a template. It involves extracting properties from the original object and assigning them to variables.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **`JSON.stringify()`**
	* Pros:
		+ Widely supported across different browsers and environments.
		+ Easy to implement.
		+ Can be used for other purposes like data storage or network transmission.
	* Cons:
		+ Creates a new JSON string, which can lead to unnecessary object creation and garbage collection.
		+ Can be slower than destructuring due to the overhead of string conversion.
2. **Destructuring (Object literal syntax)**
	* Pros:
		+ More memory-efficient since it only creates temporary variables and does not require string creation.
		+ Often faster than `JSON.stringify()` since it avoids unnecessary object creation and string conversion.
	* Cons:
		+ May have compatibility issues across different browsers and environments.
		+ Requires careful handling of cases where the original object has multiple values for a property.

**Library used:**

None, as both options rely on built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

No special features are used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that modern browsers support the `Object.entries()` method, which can be used to create an array of key-value pairs from an object and then destructured into individual variables.

**Benchmark preparation code:**

The provided script creates a complex object with multiple properties using the `var` keyword, which is a legacy syntax. Modern JavaScript would use `let` or `const` instead.

```
var obj = {a: "hello", c: "test", po: 33, arr: [1, 2, 3, 4], anotherObj: {a: 33, str: "whazzup"}};
```

**Other alternatives:**

For this specific benchmark, the alternatives are minimal since we're only comparing two approaches. However, other microbenchmarks might involve different techniques or features, such as:

1. **Prototype chain vs Object literal**: Comparing the performance of using prototypes to create objects versus traditional object literals.
2. **Array methods vs For loops**: Measuring the speed of different array methods (e.g., `forEach()`, `map()`) versus traditional for loops when iterating over arrays.
3. **Function expressions vs Function declarations**: Comparing the execution speed of anonymous function expressions (`function() {...}`) and named function declarations (`function myFunction() {...}`).

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require adjustments to the benchmark setup, test cases, or even JavaScript engines to ensure accurate results.

JSON.stringify vs Destructuring (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `JSON.stringify vs Destructuring`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

JSON.stringify

Destructuring

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 13 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 13 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

JSON.stringify vs Destructuring (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JSON.stringify vs Destructuring

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

JSON.stringify

Destructuring

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 13 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 13 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 Destructuring`