Benchmark: JSON parse vs response.json

Tests:

response.json
const showResult = result => console.log(result); const url = "https://www.googleapis.com/discovery/v1/apis"; fetch(url).then((response) => response.json()).then(showResult)
x

const showResult = result => console.log(result);

const url = "https://www.googleapis.com/discovery/v1/apis";

fetch(url).then((response) => response.json()).then(showResult)

JSON.parse

const showResult = result => console.log(result);

const url = "https://www.googleapis.com/discovery/v1/apis";

fetch(url).then((response) => JSON.parse(response._body)).then(showResult)

 
const showResult = result => console.log(result);​const url = "https://www.googleapis.com/discovery/v1/apis";​fetch(url).then((response) => JSON.parse(response._body)).then(showResult)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
response.json
JSON.parse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 21 hours ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.6 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
response.json	161.6 Ops/sec
JSON.parse	165.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):

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

Benchmark Purpose

The benchmark tests two different approaches to parse JSON data from an HTTP response:

response.json(): This approach uses the fetch API to make a request to a URL, which returns a promise that resolves with the parsed JSON data.
JSON.parse(response._body): This approach parses the raw JSON data directly from the _body property of the HTTP response object.

Options Compared

The two options being compared are:

Using the response.json() method to parse JSON data from an HTTP response
Parsing JSON data manually using JSON.parse()

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

response.json():
- Pros:
  - More convenient and readable way to handle JSON data in modern browsers.
  - Automatic handling of errors, such as parsing failures or network issues.
- Cons:
  - May require additional dependencies (e.g., fetch API polyfills) for older browsers.
JSON.parse(response._body):
- Pros:
  - More lightweight and doesn't rely on the fetch API, making it suitable for older browsers.
  - Allows for more control over parsing errors.
- Cons:
  - Less readable and less convenient than using response.json().
  - Requires manual error handling.

Library Used

In this benchmark, no external library is used. However, the fetch API is a built-in feature in modern browsers, which provides a standardized way to make HTTP requests.

Special JS Feature or Syntax

None of the provided code uses special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's necessary for parsing JSON data.

Other Alternatives

If you want to test other approaches to parse JSON data from an HTTP response, here are some alternatives:

Using XMLHttpRequest instead of the fetch API
Using a library like jQuery's $.ajax() method
Implementing manual JSON parsing using regular expressions or a custom parser

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different pros and cons compared to using the response.json() or JSON.parse(response._body) approaches.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Purpose**

The benchmark tests two different approaches to parse JSON data from an HTTP response:

1. **`response.json()`**: This approach uses the `fetch` API to make a request to a URL, which returns a promise that resolves with the parsed JSON data.
2. **`JSON.parse(response._body)`**: This approach parses the raw JSON data directly from the `_body` property of the HTTP response object.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Using the `response.json()` method to parse JSON data from an HTTP response
* Parsing JSON data manually using `JSON.parse()`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`response.json()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ More convenient and readable way to handle JSON data in modern browsers.
		+ Automatic handling of errors, such as parsing failures or network issues.
	* Cons:
		+ May require additional dependencies (e.g., `fetch` API polyfills) for older browsers.
2. **`JSON.parse(response._body)`**:
	* Pros:
		+ More lightweight and doesn't rely on the `fetch` API, making it suitable for older browsers.
		+ Allows for more control over parsing errors.
	* Cons:
		+ Less readable and less convenient than using `response.json()`.
		+ Requires manual error handling.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, no external library is used. However, the `fetch` API is a built-in feature in modern browsers, which provides a standardized way to make HTTP requests.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the provided code uses special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's necessary for parsing JSON data.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to test other approaches to parse JSON data from an HTTP response, here are some alternatives:

* Using `XMLHttpRequest` instead of the `fetch` API
* Using a library like jQuery's `$.ajax()` method
* Implementing manual JSON parsing using regular expressions or a custom parser

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different pros and cons compared to using the `response.json()` or `JSON.parse(response._body)` approaches.

Related benchmarks:

JSON parse vs response.json (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: response.json vs JSON.parse

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

response.json