Benchmark: JSON.parse vs string.split small fixed array

Script Preparation code:

var array = ["a", "b", "c"]
var str = JSON.stringify(array);

Tests:

JSON.parse
JSON.parse(str);
String.split
str.split(',')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON.parse
String.split

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches: `JSON.parse` and `string.split`. The test case uses a small fixed array of strings, which is first converted to a JSON string using `JSON.stringify(array)`, and then parsed back into an array using `JSON.parse(str)`.

**Options being compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. `JSON.parse`: This method parses a JSON string into a JavaScript object.
2. `string.split`: This method splits a string into an array of substrings, using a specified separator (in this case, the comma `,`).

**Pros and Cons**

* **JSON.parse**: Pros:
	+ Faster execution time, as it's a native JavaScript function optimized for parsing JSON strings.
	+ More concise code, as it eliminates the need to manually iterate over the array elements.
Cons:
	+ May be slower if the input string is not in a valid JSON format.
	+ Limited control over the parsing process (e.g., handling circular references).
* **string.split**: Pros:
	+ More flexible and customizable, as it allows for specifying the separator and handling edge cases.
	+ Can be faster for larger inputs, as it uses a more efficient algorithm for splitting strings.

However, **string.split** has some drawbacks:

Cons:
	+ Requires manually iterating over the array elements to process each substring.
	+ May be slower due to the overhead of creating an array of substrings.

**Library and its purpose**

There is no explicitly mentioned library in this benchmark. However, `JSON.parse` relies on the built-in JavaScript object, which is not a specific library. But, some versions of browsers may use polyfills or alternative implementations for parsing JSON strings.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code only uses standard JavaScript functions and data types.

**Other alternatives**

If the test case were to compare other approaches, some possible alternatives could be:

* Using a library like Lodash's `at` function for array indexing.
* Implementing a custom parsing algorithm using regular expressions.
* Comparing the performance of different string splitting algorithms, such as `split` vs. `substring`.

However, in this specific benchmark, only two approaches are being compared: `JSON.parse` and `string.split`.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:131.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/131.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JSON.parse	4816496.0 Ops/sec
String.split	8785471.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JSON.parse vs string.split small fixed array (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JSON.parse vs String.split

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JSON.parse

String.split

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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