Benchmark: JSON.parse VS string.split2

Script Preparation code:

const testStringSplit = []
const testJSONParse = []
for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
    testStringSplit.push(`${i},${i+1},${i+2}`)
    testJSONParse.push(`[${i},${i+1},${i+2}]`)
}

Tests:

JSON.parse
const testStringSplit = [] const testJSONParse = [] for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { testStringSplit.push(`${i},${i+1},${i+2}`) testJSONParse.push(`[${i},${i+1},${i+2}]`) } testJSONParse.forEach(x=>JSON.parse(x))
string.split
const testStringSplit = [] const testJSONParse = [] for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { testStringSplit.push(`${i},${i+1},${i+2}`) testJSONParse.push(`[${i},${i+1},${i+2}]`) } testStringSplit.forEach(x=>x.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

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/111.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 111 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JSON.parse	2632.5 Ops/sec
string.split	3537.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case that compares the performance of two JavaScript methods: `string.split` and `JSON.parse`. The test creates an array of strings using `string.split`, and another array of JSON strings using `JSON.parse`.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **String Split (`string.split`)**: This method splits a string into an array of substrings, separated by a specified delimiter (in this case, the comma `,`).
2. **JSON Parse (`JSON.parse`)**: This method parses a JSON string into a JavaScript object.

**Pros and Cons**

*   `string.split`:
    *   Pros: lightweight, easy to implement, and widely supported.
    *   Cons: can be slower for large datasets due to the overhead of creating an array and iterating over its elements.
*   `JSON.parse`:
    *   Pros: more efficient for large datasets, as it only requires parsing a single string into an object.
    *   Cons: may require additional overhead if not handled correctly (e.g., handling invalid JSON strings).

**Library Used**

In the benchmark test case, `string.split` uses the built-in JavaScript method. However, in some cases, you might need to use a library like `lodash` or `split-string`, which provide more advanced string splitting capabilities.

**Special JS Features/Syntax (Not Applicable)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark test case.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to compare other methods for parsing JSON, here are some alternatives:

*   **JSON.parse() with try-catch**: Wrapping `JSON.parse()` in a try-catch block can improve performance by avoiding the overhead of throwing an error when encountering invalid JSON.
*   **UglifyJS**: A popular JavaScript minifier that also provides a fast and efficient way to parse JSON strings.

When choosing between these alternatives, consider factors such as your specific use case, data size, and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

JSON.parse VS string.split2 (version: 0)

JSON.parse VS string.split

Comparing performance of: JSON.parse vs string.split

Created: one year 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):