Benchmark: JSON vs URLSearchParams (deserialize)

Script Preparation code:

var data = { funnelId: "test-funnel-id", channelId: "test-channel-id", metricName: "test-metric-name" }
var dataJSON = JSON.stringify(data)
var dataURL = new URLSearchParams(data)

Tests:

JSON.parse
var result = JSON.parse(dataJSON)
URLSearchParams
var result = [...new URLSearchParams(dataURL).entries()]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON.parse
URLSearchParams

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 benchmark compares two approaches for deserializing JSON data: `JSON.parse()` and `new URLSearchParams()`. The test creates a JavaScript object, converts it to a JSON string using `JSON.stringify()`, and then passes this JSON string to both methods. The benchmark measures how many executions per second each method can handle.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **`JSON.parse()`**: This method takes a JSON string as input and returns a JavaScript object.
2. **`new URLSearchParams()`**: This method takes a URL-encoded string (like the one created by `URLSearchParams`) and returns an iterator over its entries.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**`JSON.parse()`**

Pros:

* Fast and efficient
* Widely supported in browsers and Node.js
* Easy to use

Cons:

* Limited to parsing JSON strings, not URL-encoded strings
* May throw errors if the input string is malformed or not a valid JSON

**`new URLSearchParams()`**

Pros:

* Designed for working with URL-encoded strings
* Can handle malformed or invalid URLs
* Returns an iterator, which can be useful for processing large datasets

Cons:

* Not optimized for JSON parsing, may be slower than `JSON.parse()`
* Requires additional setup to convert a string to a URLSearchParams object

**Library and purpose**

`URLSearchParams` is a built-in JavaScript API that provides a way to work with URL-encoded strings. It's designed to parse and manipulate URLs, but can also be used for other purposes, like deserializing data.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

This benchmark doesn't explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's standard in the language.

**Other alternatives**

If you need to deserialize JSON data, `JSON.parse()` is likely a better choice than `new URLSearchParams()`. However, if you're working with large datasets or need to process URL-encoded strings, you might consider using a library like `qs` (querystring) or `urlparse`.

Keep in mind that the performance difference between these two approaches may not be significant for small-scale applications. However, for larger datasets or high-performance use cases, the choice of deserialization method can have a noticeable impact on execution speed.

I hope this explanation helps!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JSON.parse	3625004.0 Ops/sec
URLSearchParams	233098.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JSON vs URLSearchParams (deserialize) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JSON.parse vs URLSearchParams

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JSON.parse

URLSearchParams

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):