Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
JSON vs URLSearchParams (deserialize)
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
JSON.parse vs URLSearchParams
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var data = { funnelId: "test-funnel-id", channelId: "test-channel-id", metricName: "test-metric-name" } var dataJSON = JSON.stringify(data) var dataURL = new URLSearchParams(data)
Tests:
JSON.parse
var result = JSON.parse(dataJSON)
URLSearchParams
var result = [...new URLSearchParams(dataURL).entries()]
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
JSON.parse
URLSearchParams
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=495082" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
JSON.parse
3625004.0 Ops/sec
URLSearchParams
233098.9 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **What is being tested?** The benchmark compares two approaches for deserializing JSON data: `JSON.parse()` and `new URLSearchParams()`. The test creates a JavaScript object, converts it to a JSON string using `JSON.stringify()`, and then passes this JSON string to both methods. The benchmark measures how many executions per second each method can handle. **Options compared** The two options being compared are: 1. **`JSON.parse()`**: This method takes a JSON string as input and returns a JavaScript object. 2. **`new URLSearchParams()`**: This method takes a URL-encoded string (like the one created by `URLSearchParams`) and returns an iterator over its entries. **Pros and Cons of each approach** **`JSON.parse()`** Pros: * Fast and efficient * Widely supported in browsers and Node.js * Easy to use Cons: * Limited to parsing JSON strings, not URL-encoded strings * May throw errors if the input string is malformed or not a valid JSON **`new URLSearchParams()`** Pros: * Designed for working with URL-encoded strings * Can handle malformed or invalid URLs * Returns an iterator, which can be useful for processing large datasets Cons: * Not optimized for JSON parsing, may be slower than `JSON.parse()` * Requires additional setup to convert a string to a URLSearchParams object **Library and purpose** `URLSearchParams` is a built-in JavaScript API that provides a way to work with URL-encoded strings. It's designed to parse and manipulate URLs, but can also be used for other purposes, like deserializing data. **Special JS feature or syntax** This benchmark doesn't explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's standard in the language. **Other alternatives** If you need to deserialize JSON data, `JSON.parse()` is likely a better choice than `new URLSearchParams()`. However, if you're working with large datasets or need to process URL-encoded strings, you might consider using a library like `qs` (querystring) or `urlparse`. Keep in mind that the performance difference between these two approaches may not be significant for small-scale applications. However, for larger datasets or high-performance use cases, the choice of deserialization method can have a noticeable impact on execution speed. I hope this explanation helps!
Related benchmarks:
JSON.stringify
JSON.parse() vs. eval()
Object.keys.length vs JSON.stringify 2
json stringify vs string tostring
Test String() vs JSON.stringify()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?