Benchmark: Object literal vs Json parse by yiminghe

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>

Previous results

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

Test name	Executions per second
Object literal	8682384.0 Ops/sec
Json parse	4260311.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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:

Object literal vs Json parse by yiminghe (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object literal vs Json parse

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object literal

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):