Benchmark: msgpack-lite vs. JSON-decode

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://rawgit.com/kawanet/msgpack-lite/master/dist/msgpack.min.js"></script>

AخA
 
<script src="https://rawgit.com/kawanet/msgpack-lite/master/dist/msgpack.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var stringData = {"glossary":{"title":"example glossary","GlossDiv":{"title":"S","GlossList":{"GlossEntry":{"ID":"SGML","SortAs":"SGML","GlossTerm":"Standard Generalized Markup Language","Acronym":"SGML","Abbrev":"ISO 8879:1986","GlossDef":{"para":"A meta-markup language, used to create markup languages such as DocBook.","GlossSeeAlso":["GML","XML"]},"GlossSee":"markup"}}}}};
var numberData = [
  [1, 2, 3, 4, -1, true, null],
  [3, 6, 5, 4,  1, false, 7],
  [3, 2, 8, 1,  0, true, 0],
  [10, 11, 12, 13,  14, false, true],
  [15, 16, 17, 18, 19, true, null],
  [20, 21, 22, 23,  24, false, 7],
  [25, 26, 27, 28,  29, true, 0],
  100, 200, 300,
  [
    [1, 0, 0, 0, 0],
    [0, 1, 0, 0, 0],
    [0, 0, 1, 0, 0],
    [0, 0, 0, 1, 0],
    [0, 0, 0, 0, 1]
  ]
];
var jsonEncodedStrings = JSON.stringify(stringData),
    jsonEncodedNumbers = JSON.stringify(numberData),
    msgpackEncodedStrings = msgpack.encode(stringData),
    msgpackEncodedNumbers = msgpack.encode(numberData);

 
var stringData = {"glossary":{"title":"example glossary","GlossDiv":{"title":"S","GlossList":{"GlossEntry":{"ID":"SGML","SortAs":"SGML","GlossTerm":"Standard Generalized Markup Language","Acronym":"SGML","Abbrev":"ISO 8879:1986","GlossDef":{"para":"A meta-markup language, used to create markup languages such as DocBook.","GlossSeeAlso":["GML","XML"]},"GlossSee":"markup"}}}}};var numberData = [  [1, 2, 3, 4, -1, true, null],  [3, 6, 5, 4,  1, false, 7],  [3, 2, 8, 1,  0, true, 0],  [10, 11, 12, 13,  14, false, true],  [15, 16, 17, 18, 19, true, null],  [20, 21, 22, 23,  24, false, 7],  [25, 26, 27, 28,  29, true, 0],  100, 200, 300,  [    [1, 0, 0, 0, 0],    [0, 1, 0, 0, 0],    [0, 0, 1, 0, 0],    [0, 0, 0, 1, 0],    [0, 0, 0, 0, 1]  ]];var jsonEncodedStrings = JSON.stringify(stringData),    jsonEncodedNumbers = JSON.stringify(numberData),    msgpackEncodedStrings = msgpack.encode(stringData),    msgpackEncodedNumbers = msgpack.encode(numberData);

Tests:

MsgPack Strings Encode
var result = msgpack.encode(stringData);
var result = msgpack.encode(stringData);
JSON Strings Encode
var result = JSON.stringify(stringData);
var result = JSON.stringify(stringData);
MsgPack Numbers Encode
var result = msgpack.encode(numberData);
var result = msgpack.encode(numberData);
JSON Numbers Encode
var result = JSON.stringify(numberData);
var result = JSON.stringify(numberData);
JSON string decode
var result = JSON.parse(jsonEncodedStrings);
var result = JSON.parse(jsonEncodedStrings);
msgpack string decode
var result = msgpack.decode(msgpackEncodedStrings);
var result = msgpack.decode(msgpackEncodedStrings);

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
MsgPack Strings Encode
JSON Strings Encode
MsgPack Numbers Encode
JSON Numbers Encode
JSON string decode
msgpack string decode

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 14 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
MsgPack Strings Encode	150755.3 Ops/sec
JSON Strings Encode	754351.1 Ops/sec
MsgPack Numbers Encode	114292.2 Ops/sec
JSON Numbers Encode	508692.3 Ops/sec
JSON string decode	402974.7 Ops/sec
msgpack string decode	128990.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

Benchmark Overview

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test created on MeasureThat.net. The test compares the performance of two data serialization formats: MessagePack (MsgPack) and JSON.

Serialization Formats Compared

Two serialization formats are being compared:

JSON: A lightweight, human-readable format for exchanging data between systems.
MsgPack: A binary-based format that is more compact than JSON and can be used to encode complex data structures.

Test Cases

The benchmark consists of 6 test cases, each testing a different aspect of the serialization formats:

JSON Strings Encode: Tests the performance of encoding strings using JSON.
JSON Numbers Encode: Tests the performance of encoding numbers using JSON.
JSON string decode: Tests the performance of decoding a string encoded in JSON.
MsgPack Strings Encode: Tests the performance of encoding strings using MsgPack.
MsgPack Numbers Encode: Tests the performance of encoding numbers using MsgPack.
msgpack string decode: Tests the performance of decoding a string encoded in MsgPack.

Library Used

The msgpack-lite library is used for MsgPack encoding and decoding.

Special JS Feature/Syntax

None are mentioned.

Other Considerations

When choosing between JSON and MsgPack, consider the trade-off between:

Human-readability: JSON is more readable than MsgPack.
Compactness: MsgPack is generally more compact than JSON.
Performance: MsgPack can be faster for large datasets due to its binary-based format.

Benchmark Results

The provided benchmark results show the performance of each test case on a specific browser and device platform. The results are measured in executions per second (FPS).

In general, MsgPack performs better than JSON for larger datasets, but JSON may have an advantage in terms of human-readability and ease of implementation.

Alternatives

Other data serialization formats that can be used instead of JSON and MsgPack include:

Protocol Buffers: A binary-based format developed by Google.
Thrift: A language-agnostic system for serializing structured data.
Avro: A binary-based format designed to handle complex data structures.

Each alternative has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on the specific use case and requirements.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test created on MeasureThat.net. The test compares the performance of two data serialization formats: MessagePack (MsgPack) and JSON.

**Serialization Formats Compared**

Two serialization formats are being compared:

1. **JSON**: A lightweight, human-readable format for exchanging data between systems.
2. **MsgPack**: A binary-based format that is more compact than JSON and can be used to encode complex data structures.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of 6 test cases, each testing a different aspect of the serialization formats:

1. **JSON Strings Encode**: Tests the performance of encoding strings using JSON.
2. **JSON Numbers Encode**: Tests the performance of encoding numbers using JSON.
3. **JSON string decode**: Tests the performance of decoding a string encoded in JSON.
4. **MsgPack Strings Encode**: Tests the performance of encoding strings using MsgPack.
5. **MsgPack Numbers Encode**: Tests the performance of encoding numbers using MsgPack.
6. **msgpack string decode**: Tests the performance of decoding a string encoded in MsgPack.

**Library Used**

The `msgpack-lite` library is used for MsgPack encoding and decoding.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None are mentioned.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between JSON and MsgPack, consider the trade-off between:

* **Human-readability**: JSON is more readable than MsgPack.
* **Compactness**: MsgPack is generally more compact than JSON.
* **Performance**: MsgPack can be faster for large datasets due to its binary-based format.

**Benchmark Results**

The provided benchmark results show the performance of each test case on a specific browser and device platform. The results are measured in executions per second (FPS).

In general, MsgPack performs better than JSON for larger datasets, but JSON may have an advantage in terms of human-readability and ease of implementation.

**Alternatives**

Other data serialization formats that can be used instead of JSON and MsgPack include:

* **Protocol Buffers**: A binary-based format developed by Google.
* **Thrift**: A language-agnostic system for serializing structured data.
* **Avro**: A binary-based format designed to handle complex data structures.

Each alternative has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on the specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

msgpack-lite vs. JSON-decode (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: MsgPack Strings Encode vs JSON Strings Encode vs MsgPack Numbers Encode vs JSON Numbers Encode vs JSON string decode vs msgpack string decode

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

MsgPack Strings Encode

JSON Strings Encode

MsgPack Numbers Encode

JSON Numbers Encode

JSON string decode

msgpack string decode

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):