Benchmark: json.parse vs includes2

Script Preparation code:

var a='{"type": "111", "msg":"2222"}'

Tests:

includes
a.includes('111') a.includes('111') a.includes('111') a.includes('111') a.includes('111') a.includes('111') a.includes('111') a.includes('111')
json.parse
JSON.parse(a)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
json.parse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/116.0.5845.1064 YaBrowser/23.9.1.1064 (beta) Yowser/2.5 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Yandex Browser 23 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	2370759.5 Ops/sec
json.parse	1857550.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases: `includes` and `json.parse`. The tests are designed to compare the performance of these two approaches:

1. **String includes**: This approach checks if a substring exists within a string.
2. **JSON parsing**: This approach parses a JSON string into JavaScript objects.

**Options compared**

The benchmarks compare the execution time of the following options:

* `includes` (using the dot notation): `a.includes('111')`
* `json.parse` (using the built-in `JSON.parse()` function): `JSON.parse(a)`

**Pros and cons**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

1. **String includes** (`includes`):
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and concise
		+ Fast for small strings
	* Cons:
		+ May lead to incorrect results if the substring is not found ( returns `false`)
		+ Can be slower for larger strings due to string manipulation
2. **JSON parsing** (`json.parse`):
	* Pros:
		+ More robust and accurate, as it handles nested objects and arrays correctly
		+ Can handle larger data structures without significant performance impact
	* Cons:
		+ May have higher overhead due to the need to parse the JSON string

**Library**

In this case, no external library is used. The `includes` method is a built-in JavaScript function, while `JSON.parse()` relies on the built-in `JSON` object.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There doesn't seem to be any specific feature or syntax being tested in these benchmarks. However, it's worth noting that some browsers might have different behavior when using `includes` due to their implementation of this method (e.g., some use a trie data structure).

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to string includes or JSON parsing, consider the following:

* For string includes:
	+ Use a regex pattern: `a.match(/111/g)` (note that this will return an array, so you may need to adjust your test)
	+ Implement your own substring searching algorithm (e.g., using Boyer-Moore string matching)
* For JSON parsing:
	+ Use the `eval()` function, which can parse JSON strings, but is generally considered less safe due to security concerns
	+ Use a third-party library like `jsonlint` or `js-yaml` for more robust and flexible JSON parsing options

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as optimized or efficient as the built-in methods used in these benchmarks.

Related benchmarks:

json.parse vs includes2 (version: 1)

json.parse vs includes

Comparing performance of: includes vs json.parse

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

includes

json.parse

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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