Benchmark: JSON.parse vs structuredClone

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {
  description: 'Creates a deep copy of source, which should be an object or an array.',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
  jayson: {
    stringify: 'JSON.stringify() method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string....',
    parse: 'JSON.parse() method parses a JSON string...'
  }
};

var str = JSON.stringify(obj);

Tests:

JSON.parse
JSON.parse(str);
structuredClone
structuredClone(obj);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON.parse
structuredClone

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/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JSON.parse	409979.9 Ops/sec
structuredClone	169861.7 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 benchmark and its results.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two JavaScript methods: `JSON.parse()` and `structuredClone()`. Both methods are used to parse or create a copy of a JSON string.

**What is tested?**

* The benchmark tests the execution speed of these two methods on a specific input object, which is created using the provided "Script Preparation Code".

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. `JSON.parse()`: This method parses a JSON string into a JavaScript object.
2. `structuredClone()`: This method creates a deep clone of a value, including objects and arrays.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **`JSON.parse()`**:
	+ Pros: widely supported, simple to use, well-documented.
	+ Cons: can be slow for large inputs due to the overhead of parsing the JSON string.
	+ Additional consideration: `JSON.parse()` creates a new object, which may incur additional memory allocation and garbage collection.
* **`structuredClone()```**:
	+ Pros: optimized for performance, provides more control over cloning objects and arrays.
	+ Cons: less widely supported (Chrome 120 is the only browser that has implemented this feature), requires specific syntax.

**Library or special JS feature**

The benchmark uses `structuredClone()` which is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020. It's designed to provide a more efficient and flexible way of cloning values, including objects and arrays.

**Other considerations**

* **Performance**: The benchmark measures the execution speed of these two methods on a specific input object.
* **Memory usage**: Both methods create new objects or arrays, which may incur additional memory allocation and garbage collection.

**Alternatives**

If you need to clone or parse JSON data in your JavaScript application:

1. Use `JSON.parse()` for simple cases where performance is not critical, or when support for `structuredClone()` is not available.
2. Consider using a library like Lodash's `cloneDeep()` or Immutable.js's `clone()` for more complex cloning scenarios, which may provide better performance and control.
3. For optimal performance and compatibility, consider using `structuredClone()` if your target browser supports it.

In summary, the benchmark compares the performance of two methods for parsing or creating a copy of JSON data: `JSON.parse()` and `structuredClone()`. The choice between these methods depends on the specific requirements of your application, including performance needs, compatibility with different browsers, and memory usage considerations.

Related benchmarks:

JSON.parse vs structuredClone (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JSON.parse vs structuredClone

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JSON.parse

structuredClone

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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