Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Object literal vs Json parse by yiminghe
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Object literal vs Json parse
Created:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
Object literal
eval(`const literal = { foo: 42, bar: 1337 }; literal.foo; `);
Json parse
eval(`const json = JSON.parse('{"foo":42,"bar":1337}'); json.foo; `);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Object literal
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/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 128 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=540638" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Object literal
8.7M/s
Json parse
4.3M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Object literal
8,682,384 Ops/sec
Json parse
4,260,312 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'd be happy to help you understand the provided benchmark. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents two individual test cases for a JavaScript microbenchmark. The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of accessing an object literal versus parsing a JSON string in JavaScript. **Options compared:** There are two options being compared: 1. **Object Literal**: This option tests the performance of directly accessing a property on an object literal, i.e., `const literal = { foo: 42, bar: 1337 }; literal.foo;`. 2. **JSON Parse**: This option tests the performance of parsing a JSON string and then accessing its properties, i.e., `const json = JSON.parse('{\"foo\":42,\"bar\":1337}'); json.foo;`. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **Object Literal**: * Pros: Direct access to the property is faster since it doesn't require additional parsing or string manipulation. * Cons: If the object literal is complex, this approach may lead to slower performance due to the overhead of looking up properties on an object. 2. **JSON Parse**: * Pros: This approach can handle complex JSON data structures and is often more convenient when working with dynamic data. * Cons: Parsing a JSON string introduces additional overhead compared to direct access on an object literal. **Other considerations:** * The use of `eval()` in both test cases may introduce security risks, as it allows arbitrary code execution. In a real-world scenario, you'd typically avoid using `eval()` unless absolutely necessary. * The benchmark only measures the performance difference between these two approaches and doesn't account for other factors that might affect performance, such as CPU architecture or memory constraints. **Library usage:** There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that the use of `JSON.parse()` relies on the built-in JavaScript `JSON` object, which is a part of the ECMAScript standard. **Special JS feature or syntax:** None are explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON. However, if you're interested in learning more about other JavaScript features or syntax, I can provide information on various aspects of the language. **Alternatives:** Other alternatives for accessing properties on objects or parsing JSON strings include: * Using the `Object.keys()` and `at()` methods (ES6) to access object properties * Utilizing a library like Lodash's `get()` method to dynamically access property values * Parsing JSON strings using libraries like json-stringify-safe or fast-JSON
Related benchmarks
Lodash 2.2.0 cloneDeep vs JSON Clone w/ large nested object
Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone vs JSON Parse (deep object)
Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone vs JSON.parse + JSON.stringify but with big data
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?