Benchmark: JSON Query Languages

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/jsonata/jsonata.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/jmespath/jmespath.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/jspath/jspath.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/jsonpath"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var testData = {"a": {"b": {"c": {"d": "value"}}}}

Tests:

JMESPath
var jmespathResult = jmespath.search(testData, 'a.b.c.d')
JSONata
var jsonataResult = jsonata('a.b.c.d').evaluate(testData)
JSPath
var jsPathResult = JSPath.apply('.a.b.c.d', testData)
JSONPath
var jsPathResult = jsonpath.query(testData, '$.a.b.c.d')

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 78 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 43 runs

JSPath

18.1M/s

JMESPath

1.2M/s

JSONPath

121K/s

JSONata

58K/s

Fastest: JSPath (309.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ JSPath: 18,081,208 ops/sec
• JMESPath: 1,197,938 ops/sec
• JSONPath: 120,600 ops/sec
• JSONata: 58,414 ops/sec

Firefox 15 runs

JSPath

17.2M/s

JMESPath

1.1M/s

JSONPath

150K/s

JSONata

52K/s

Fastest: JSPath (332.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ JSPath: 17,233,456 ops/sec
• JMESPath: 1,051,113 ops/sec
• JSONPath: 150,383 ops/sec
• JSONata: 51,882 ops/sec

Safari 5 runs

JSPath

16.1M/s

JMESPath

1.2M/s

JSONPath

140K/s

JSONata

100K/s

Fastest: JSPath (161.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ JSPath: 16,137,801 ops/sec
• JMESPath: 1,167,774 ops/sec
• JSONPath: 139,762 ops/sec
• JSONata: 99,946 ops/sec

Mobile Results:

Chrome 8 runs

JSPath

11.3M/s

JMESPath

666K/s

JSONPath

70K/s

JSONata

23K/s

Fastest: JSPath (493.8x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ JSPath: 11,258,232 ops/sec
• JMESPath: 666,394 ops/sec
• JSONPath: 69,674 ops/sec
• JSONata: 22,801 ops/sec

Safari 7 runs

JSPath

16.0M/s

JMESPath

1.3M/s

JSONPath

140K/s

JSONata

96K/s

Fastest: JSPath (167.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ JSPath: 16,021,042 ops/sec
• JMESPath: 1,342,750 ops/sec
• JSONPath: 140,483 ops/sec
• JSONata: 95,824 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JMESPath
JSONata
JSPath
JSONPath

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/149.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/149.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 149 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

JSPath

20.9M/s

JMESPath

1.2M/s

JSONPath

146K/s

JSONata

66K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ JSPath	20,949,638 Ops/sec
JMESPath	1,228,850 Ops/sec
JSONPath	146,425 Ops/sec
JSONata	65,651 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of JSON query languages is an essential task, especially with the growing amount of data being stored and processed in various applications.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares four popular JavaScript libraries for querying JSON data: JMESPath (JMESPath), JSONata, JSPath (JSPATH), and JSONPath. Each library is tested for its execution speed when used to query a predefined test dataset.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

1. **JMESPath**: Uses a syntax inspired by XPath expressions to query JSON data.
2. **JSONata**: Offers a unique, functional programming-inspired language for querying JSON data.
3. **JSPath (JSPATH)**: Provides a lightweight and efficient way to query JSON data using a simple, dot-based notation.
4. **JSONPath**: Implements the standard JSON Path specification for querying JSON data.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief overview of each library's strengths and weaknesses:

1. **JMESPath**:
	* Pros: Easy to learn and use, widely adopted, and supports many features (e.g., variables, functions).
	* Cons: Can be slower than other libraries for simple queries.
2. **JSONata**:
	* Pros: Offers a unique, functional programming-inspired syntax that can lead to more concise code.
	* Cons: May require additional learning time due to its proprietary syntax.
3. **JSPath (JSPATH)**:
	* Pros: Extremely lightweight and efficient, making it suitable for large-scale applications.
	* Cons: Limited features compared to other libraries.
4. **JSONPath**:
	* Pros: Standardized specification ensures compatibility across implementations.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient or user-friendly as other libraries.

**Library Descriptions**

Here are brief descriptions of the mentioned libraries:

1. **JMESPath**: A JavaScript implementation of the JMESPath query language, which is inspired by XPath expressions. It's widely used and supports many features, making it a popular choice for querying JSON data.
2. **JSONata**: A proprietary query language that offers a functional programming-inspired syntax. It's designed to be concise and efficient, but its unique syntax may require additional learning time.
3. **JSPath (JSPATH)**: A lightweight JavaScript library that provides an efficient way to query JSON data using a simple dot-based notation. Its minimalistic approach makes it suitable for large-scale applications.

**Special Features or Syntax**

The benchmark doesn't explicitly mention any special features or syntax, but we can assume that each library has its own strengths and weaknesses:

* **JMESPath**: Supports variables, functions, and other advanced features.
* **JSONata**: Offers a functional programming-inspired syntax with concise code generation.
* **JSPath (JSPATH)**: Provides an efficient, lightweight implementation with no additional features.
* **JSONPath**: Implements the standard JSON Path specification.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative JavaScript libraries for querying JSON data, consider:

1. **XPath.js**: A JavaScript implementation of the XPath 1.0 specification.
2. **Query.js**: A lightweight library that provides a flexible and efficient way to query JSON data using a simple syntax.

In conclusion, each library has its strengths and weaknesses, making it essential to evaluate their performance and features when choosing a suitable library for your specific use case.

JSON Query Languages (version: 0) Benchmark.js

JMESPath vs JSONata vs JSPath vs JSONPath

Comparing performance of: `JMESPath vs JSONata vs JSPath vs JSONPath`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

JMESPath

JSONata

JSPath

JSONPath

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 78 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 43 runs

Firefox 15 runs

Safari 5 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 8 runs

Safari 7 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

JSON Query Languages (version: 0) Benchmark.js

JMESPath vs JSONata vs JSPath vs JSONPath

Comparing performance of: JMESPath vs JSONata vs JSPath vs JSONPath

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

JMESPath

JSONata

JSPath

JSONPath

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 78 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 43 runs

Firefox 15 runs

Safari 5 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 8 runs

Safari 7 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Comparing performance of: `JMESPath vs JSONata vs JSPath vs JSONPath`