Benchmark: JSON.parse - aggregated events vs single events

Script Preparation code:

var aggregatedJson = '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"subscriptions","params":{"events":[["volatility_index.btc_usd",{"volatility":97.96,"timestamp":1650968338717,"index_name":"btc_usd","estimated_delivery":97.96}],["volatility_index.eth_usd",{"volatility":59.6,"timestamp":1650968338712,"index_name":"eth_usd","estimated_delivery":59.6}],["price_index.btc_usd",{"timestamp":1650968338767,"price":40367.16,"index_name":"btc_usd"}],["price_index.sol_usd",{"timestamp":1650968338790,"price":100.3409,"index_name":"sol_usd"}]]}}';

var singleJson1 = '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"subscription","params":{"channel":"volatility_index.btc_usd","data":{"volatility":97.96,"timestamp":1650968338717,"index_name":"btc_usd","estimated_delivery":97.96}}}';

var singleJson2 = '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"subscription","params":{"channel":"volatility_index.eth_usd","data":{"volatility":59.6,"timestamp":1650968338712,"index_name":"eth_usd","estimated_delivery":59.6}}}';

var singleJson3 = '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"subscription","params":{"channel":"price_index.btc_usd","data":{"timestamp":1650968338767,"price":40367.16,"index_name":"btc_usd"}}}';

var singleJson4 = '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"subscription","params":{"channel":"price_index.sol_usd","data":{"timestamp":1650968338790,"price":100.3409,"index_name":"sol_usd"}}}';

Tests:

parse aggregated JSON
JSON.parse(aggregatedJson);
parse single JSONs
JSON.parse(singleJson1); JSON.parse(singleJson2); JSON.parse(singleJson3); JSON.parse(singleJson4);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
parse aggregated JSON
parse single JSONs

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to parsing JSON data in JavaScript:

1. **Aggregated JSON**: A single `JSON.parse()` call on a large aggregated JSON string containing multiple smaller objects.
2. **Single JSONs**: Four separate `JSON.parse()` calls on individual small JSON strings.

**Library and Purpose**

The benchmark uses the built-in `JSON` object, which is a part of the JavaScript language standard. The `JSON` object provides methods for parsing and generating JSON data.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Aggregated JSON**: A single call to `JSON.parse()` on an aggregated JSON string.
2. **Single JSONs**: Four separate calls to `JSON.parse()` on individual small JSON strings.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Aggregated JSON:**

Pros:

* Reduces the number of function calls, which can improve performance by reducing overhead.
* Can be more memory-efficient since it only creates one parsed object.

Cons:

* May require additional parsing or processing steps to extract individual objects from the aggregated string.
* Can lead to slower execution times if the aggregated string is very large and needs to be fully parsed before individual objects are extracted.

**Single JSONs:**

Pros:

* Allows for more fine-grained control over individual object parsing and extraction.
* May be faster if individual objects are small and don't require significant parsing or processing steps.

Cons:

* Requires four separate function calls, which can increase overhead and execution time.
* Can lead to higher memory usage since each call creates a new parsed object.

**Special JS Feature**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It relies solely on standard JavaScript language constructs.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

1. **Use a JSON parsing library**: Libraries like `json5` or `fast-json-parse` can provide optimized parsing performance.
2. **Use a streaming JSON parser**: Streaming parsers like `stream/json-stream` can parse large JSON data streams more efficiently than traditional parsing methods.
3. **Optimize your own JSON parsing**: Consider optimizing the parsing process by reducing unnecessary computations, using caching, or leveraging hardware acceleration.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require significant changes to your code and may not provide tangible performance benefits for all use cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/99.0.4844.82 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 99 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
parse aggregated JSON	302929.2 Ops/sec
parse single JSONs	181260.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JSON.parse - aggregated events vs single events (version: 0)

Compare single JSON.parse call vs multiple JSON.parse calls of smaller objects

Comparing performance of: parse aggregated JSON vs parse single JSONs

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

parse aggregated JSON

parse single JSONs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):