Benchmark: JSON parse vs response.json

Tests:

response.json
const showResult = result => console.log(result); const url = "https://www.googleapis.com/discovery/v1/apis"; fetch(url).then((response) => response.json()).then(showResult)
JSON.parse
const showResult = result => console.log(result); const url = "https://www.googleapis.com/discovery/v1/apis"; fetch(url).then((response) => JSON.parse(response._body)).then(showResult)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
response.json
JSON.parse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.6 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
response.json	161.6 Ops/sec
JSON.parse	165.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The benchmark tests two different approaches to parse JSON data from an HTTP response:

1. **`response.json()`**: This approach uses the `fetch` API to make a request to a URL, which returns a promise that resolves with the parsed JSON data.
2. **`JSON.parse(response._body)`**: This approach parses the raw JSON data directly from the `_body` property of the HTTP response object.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Using the `response.json()` method to parse JSON data from an HTTP response
* Parsing JSON data manually using `JSON.parse()`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`response.json()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ More convenient and readable way to handle JSON data in modern browsers.
		+ Automatic handling of errors, such as parsing failures or network issues.
	* Cons:
		+ May require additional dependencies (e.g., `fetch` API polyfills) for older browsers.
2. **`JSON.parse(response._body)`**:
	* Pros:
		+ More lightweight and doesn't rely on the `fetch` API, making it suitable for older browsers.
		+ Allows for more control over parsing errors.
	* Cons:
		+ Less readable and less convenient than using `response.json()`.
		+ Requires manual error handling.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, no external library is used. However, the `fetch` API is a built-in feature in modern browsers, which provides a standardized way to make HTTP requests.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the provided code uses special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's necessary for parsing JSON data.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to test other approaches to parse JSON data from an HTTP response, here are some alternatives:

* Using `XMLHttpRequest` instead of the `fetch` API
* Using a library like jQuery's `$.ajax()` method
* Implementing manual JSON parsing using regular expressions or a custom parser

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different pros and cons compared to using the `response.json()` or `JSON.parse(response._body)` approaches.

Related benchmarks:

JSON parse vs response.json (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: response.json vs JSON.parse

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

response.json

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):