Benchmark: JSON.parse() vs. js-yaml 4.1.0 vs. yaml 2.3.1

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/js-yaml/4.1.0/js-yaml.min.js"></script>
<script type="module">
import yaml from "https://cdn.skypack.dev/pin/yaml@v2.3.1-T7Nbcyc9CBdWzao77zGJ/mode=imports,min/optimized/yaml.js";
window.yaml = yaml;
</script>

Script Preparation code:

var jsonString = '{"key1": "val1", "key2": 7}';
var yamlString = 'key1: val1\nkey2: 7';

Tests:

JSON.parse()
var dummy = JSON.parse(jsonString);
js-yaml
var dummy = jsyaml.load(yamlString);
yaml
var dummy = yaml.parse(yamlString)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON.parse()
js-yaml
yaml

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/138.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36 EdgA/138.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 138 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JSON.parse()	5526123.5 Ops/sec
js-yaml	752773.2 Ops/sec
yaml	69722.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches to parse YAML data:

1. `JSON.parse()`: Native JavaScript method for parsing JSON data.
2. `js-yaml 4.1.0`: A third-party library specifically designed for parsing YAML data.
3. `yaml 2.3.1`: Another third-party library for parsing YAML data.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the execution time of each approach on a specific input:

* `jsonString`: A JSON string containing key-value pairs.
* `yamlString`: The same YAML data represented in a different format.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **JSON.parse()**:
	* Pros: Native JavaScript method, widely supported, fast execution time.
	* Cons: Limited to parsing JSON data only, may not work with non-standard JSON formats.
2. **js-yaml 4.1.0**:
	* Pros: Specifically designed for YAML parsing, supports a wide range of YAML syntax, fast execution time.
	* Cons: Third-party library, may introduce additional overhead due to external dependencies.
3. **yaml 2.3.1**:
	* Pros: Fast execution time, lightweight, and easy to integrate.
	* Cons: Not specifically designed for YAML parsing (like js-yaml), might not support all YAML syntax.

**Library Used**

Both `js-yaml` and `yaml` libraries are used in the benchmark. These libraries provide a way to parse YAML data in JavaScript, making it possible to compare their performance with the native `JSON.parse()` method.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None mentioned in this specific benchmark, as it focuses on comparing different parsing approaches rather than exploring advanced JavaScript features or syntax.

**Other Considerations**

When using these libraries for YAML parsing, consider factors like:

* Support for non-standard YAML syntax
* Handling of edge cases (e.g., empty input, invalid data)
* Integration with other libraries or frameworks

**Alternatives**

For those interested in alternative YAML parsers or JSON-based solutions, some options include:

* `yamljs`: A lightweight YAML parser that provides a similar API to `js-yaml`.
* `parse-yaml`: Another third-party library for parsing YAML data.
* `json-yaml-merge`: A library that allows merging JSON and YAML data.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, feature sets, or licensing models compared to the libraries used in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

JSON.parse() vs. js-yaml 4.1.0 vs. yaml 2.3.1 (version: 0)

Compare popular yaml parsers with native JSON parser

Comparing performance of: JSON.parse() vs js-yaml vs yaml

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JSON.parse()

js-yaml

yaml

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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