Benchmark: json parse vs manual 3

Script Preparation code:

obj = JSON.stringify({ crid: "13216546879", size: 13, fullsize: 123 });
str = '123456|13|123';

Tests:

Json.stringify
const json = JSON.parse(obj); const crid = json.crid; const size = json.size; const fsize = json.fullsize;
manual
const vars = str.split('|'); const crid = vars[0] const size = Number(vars[1]); const fsize = Number(vars[2]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Json.stringify
manual

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/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Json.stringify	3699175.8 Ops/sec
manual	4584598.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its results.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches for parsing JSON data in JavaScript:

1. **JSON.parse()**: A built-in JavaScript function that parses a JSON string into a JavaScript object.
2. **Manual parsing**: Using string splitting and parsing individual values from a string.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests the performance of each approach on different inputs, including varying lengths of strings.

* The first test case uses `JSON.parse()` to parse a JSON string with a fixed size (13 characters). This is a simple and efficient way to extract specific values from the JSON object.
* The second test case uses manual parsing by splitting the input string into individual parts using the `|` character as a delimiter. Then, it extracts specific values by indexing into the resulting array.

**Pros and Cons**

* **JSON.parse():**
	+ Pros: Fast and efficient, handles most edge cases automatically.
	+ Cons: May not work for malformed or invalid JSON input, limited control over parsing process.
* **Manual parsing:**
	+ Pros: Provides fine-grained control over parsing process, can handle complex data structures.
	+ Cons: Requires manual error handling, slower and less efficient than `JSON.parse()`.

**Library Used**

In the benchmark code, the `JSON` object is used, which is a built-in JavaScript library that provides functions for working with JSON data. The `JSON.stringify()` function is used to generate the test input string, while the `JSON.parse()` function is used in the first test case.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntax specific to this benchmark. Both approaches use standard JavaScript functions and syntax.

**Other Considerations**

When working with JSON data, it's essential to consider factors like:

* Input validation: Ensuring that input data is valid and well-formed before attempting to parse it.
* Error handling: Implementing mechanisms for handling errors that may occur during parsing or processing of JSON data.
* Performance optimization: Using techniques like caching, memoization, or parallel processing to improve the performance of JSON-related operations.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches for working with JSON data in JavaScript include:

1. **Using a third-party library**: Libraries like `json5`, `json-stringify-safe`, or `js-yaml` provide additional features and optimizations for working with JSON data.
2. **Using an alternative parsing algorithm**: Algorithms like the "JSON parser" from the `json-parsing` library or custom implementations using techniques like regular expressions or DOM manipulation.

These alternatives may offer benefits like improved performance, additional features, or better error handling, but they also come with their own set of trade-offs and considerations.

Related benchmarks:

json parse vs manual 3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Json.stringify vs manual

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Json.stringify

manual

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):