Benchmark: json import vs fetchhbyu

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Script Preparation code:

let obj = {a:Array.from({length:1337},(b,i)=>i)}
let src = URL.createObjectURL(new Blob([JSON.stringify(obj)]))
obj = null

Tests:

fetch
void async function () { (await (await fetch(src)).json()).a.reduce((a,b)=>a+b) URL.revokeObjectURL(src) deferred.resolve() }()
import
void async function () { (await import(src, { with: { type: 'json' } })).a.reduce((a,b)=>a+b) URL.revokeObjectURL(src) deferred.resolve() }()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
fetch
import

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/139.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 139 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

import

184K/s

fetch

23K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ import	184,467 Ops/sec
fetch	22,769 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided benchmark tests two methods for importing and parsing JSON data in JavaScript: using the `fetch` API and using the `import` syntax. The benchmark compares these two approaches in terms of performance, specifically focusing on their execution speed.

### Options Compared

1. **Fetch API**:
   - **Benchmark Definition**: 
     ```javascript
     void async function () {
         (await (await fetch(src)).json()).a.reduce((a,b)=>a+b);
         URL.revokeObjectURL(src);
         deferred.resolve();
     }()
     ```
   - **Description**: The `fetch` method is used to retrieve a resource across the network. In this case, it fetches a JSON blob created earlier. After fetching, the JSON data is parsed using `.json()`, and a simple reduction operation is performed on an array property (`a`).
   - **Pros**:
     - Standardized method for making network requests.
     - Easy to use, especially for simple use cases.
   - **Cons**:
     - May have overhead due to the need to first retrieve the data and then parse it.
     - Slightly slower in scenarios where quick loading and access are critical.
  
2. **Dynamic Import**:
   - **Benchmark Definition**:
     ```javascript
     void async function () {
         (await import(src, { with: { type: 'json' } })).a.reduce((a,b)=>a+b);
         URL.revokeObjectURL(src);
         deferred.resolve();
     }()
     ```
   - **Description**: The dynamic `import` statement allows the loading of modules asynchronously. Here, it's used with the JSON resource. It attempts to load the JSON blob directly as a module, specifying the content type.
   - **Pros**:
     - Can have performance benefits if the loading method can skip some of the parsing overhead.
     - More flexible for modular architectures (where JSON is treated like a module).
   - **Cons**:
     - May not be supported in all environments, depending on the JavaScript version and configuration.
     - Usage can be more complex compared to fetch, requiring a good understanding of modules.

### Result Analysis
The benchmark results show a significant difference in execution speed:
- The `import` method achieved approximately **55,093.5 executions per second**.
- The `fetch` method achieved about **2,500.5 executions per second**.

This indicates that the dynamic `import` approach is substantially faster in this scenario, likely due to its optimization for handling module-like imports.

### Additional Considerations
1. **Use Cases**: If JSON data needs to be loaded and manipulated frequently, considering the `import` method might lead to better performance. However, for simpler cases or scenarios where data is not reused, `fetch` remains a straightforward choice.
  
2. **Browser Support**: When choosing between these methods, it's essential to verify browser compatibility, particularly for the dynamic `import`, which may not be supported in older environments or configurations without proper transpilation.

3. **Alternatives**: Beyond `fetch` and `import`, alternatives for loading JSON data include:
   - Using `XMLHttpRequest`, which is older and less preferred due to its more complex syntax.
   - Directly embedding JSON data within scripts or as a static resource, particularly for smaller datasets.

Overall, this benchmark provides valuable insights for software engineers into the performance characteristics of modern JavaScript approaches to handling JSON data. While `fetch` provides a reliable method that is thoroughly supported, the dynamic `import` can yield significant performance benefits under the right circumstances.

json import vs fetchhbyu (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: `fetch vs import`

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

fetch

import

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

json import vs fetchhbyu (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: fetch vs import

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

fetch

import

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `fetch vs import`