Benchmark: msgpack-lite vs. JSON-decode

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://rawgit.com/kawanet/msgpack-lite/master/dist/msgpack.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var stringData = {"glossary":{"title":"example glossary","GlossDiv":{"title":"S","GlossList":{"GlossEntry":{"ID":"SGML","SortAs":"SGML","GlossTerm":"Standard Generalized Markup Language","Acronym":"SGML","Abbrev":"ISO 8879:1986","GlossDef":{"para":"A meta-markup language, used to create markup languages such as DocBook.","GlossSeeAlso":["GML","XML"]},"GlossSee":"markup"}}}}};
var numberData = [
  [1, 2, 3, 4, -1, true, null],
  [3, 6, 5, 4,  1, false, 7],
  [3, 2, 8, 1,  0, true, 0],
  [10, 11, 12, 13,  14, false, true],
  [15, 16, 17, 18, 19, true, null],
  [20, 21, 22, 23,  24, false, 7],
  [25, 26, 27, 28,  29, true, 0],
  100, 200, 300,
  [
    [1, 0, 0, 0, 0],
    [0, 1, 0, 0, 0],
    [0, 0, 1, 0, 0],
    [0, 0, 0, 1, 0],
    [0, 0, 0, 0, 1]
  ]
];
var jsonEncodedStrings = JSON.stringify(stringData),
    jsonEncodedNumbers = JSON.stringify(numberData),
    msgpackEncodedStrings = msgpack.encode(stringData),
    msgpackEncodedNumbers = msgpack.encode(numberData);

Tests:

MsgPack Strings Encode
var result = msgpack.encode(stringData);
JSON Strings Encode
var result = JSON.stringify(stringData);
MsgPack Numbers Encode
var result = msgpack.encode(numberData);
JSON Numbers Encode
var result = JSON.stringify(numberData);
JSON string decode
var result = JSON.parse(jsonEncodedStrings);
msgpack string decode
var result = msgpack.decode(msgpackEncodedStrings);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 26 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 21 runs

JSON Strings Encode

1.3M/s

JSON Numbers Encode

911K/s

JSON string decode

825K/s

msgpack string decode

330K/s

MsgPack Numbers Encode

271K/s

MsgPack Strings Encode

211K/s

Fastest: JSON Strings Encode (6.1x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ JSON Strings Encode: 1,289,903 ops/sec
• JSON Numbers Encode: 911,203 ops/sec
• JSON string decode: 825,409 ops/sec
• msgpack string decode: 330,043 ops/sec
• MsgPack Numbers Encode: 270,806 ops/sec
• MsgPack Strings Encode: 211,117 ops/sec

Mobile Results:

Chrome 5 runs

JSON Strings Encode

1.4M/s

JSON Numbers Encode

1.0M/s

JSON string decode

649K/s

msgpack string decode

206K/s

MsgPack Numbers Encode

156K/s

MsgPack Strings Encode

79K/s

Fastest: JSON Strings Encode (18.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ JSON Strings Encode: 1,440,514 ops/sec
• JSON Numbers Encode: 1,015,651 ops/sec
• JSON string decode: 649,255 ops/sec
• msgpack string decode: 205,720 ops/sec
• MsgPack Numbers Encode: 156,082 ops/sec
• MsgPack Strings Encode: 79,150 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
MsgPack Strings Encode
JSON Strings Encode
MsgPack Numbers Encode
JSON Numbers Encode
JSON string decode
msgpack string decode

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/85.0.4183.127 Safari/537.36 OPR/60.3.3004.55692

Browser/OS: Opera 60 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

JSON Strings Encode

40K/s

JSON string decode

37K/s

JSON Numbers Encode

35K/s

MsgPack Numbers Encode

14K/s

MsgPack Strings Encode

11K/s

msgpack string decode

10K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ JSON Strings Encode	39,516 Ops/sec
JSON string decode	37,260 Ops/sec
JSON Numbers Encode	34,632 Ops/sec
MsgPack Numbers Encode	13,742 Ops/sec
MsgPack Strings Encode	11,390 Ops/sec
msgpack string decode	10,165 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 provided benchmark and explain what is tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test created on MeasureThat.net. The test compares the performance of two data serialization formats: MessagePack (MsgPack) and JSON.

**Serialization Formats Compared**

Two serialization formats are being compared:

1. **JSON**: A lightweight, human-readable format for exchanging data between systems.
2. **MsgPack**: A binary-based format that is more compact than JSON and can be used to encode complex data structures.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of 6 test cases, each testing a different aspect of the serialization formats:

1. **JSON Strings Encode**: Tests the performance of encoding strings using JSON.
2. **JSON Numbers Encode**: Tests the performance of encoding numbers using JSON.
3. **JSON string decode**: Tests the performance of decoding a string encoded in JSON.
4. **MsgPack Strings Encode**: Tests the performance of encoding strings using MsgPack.
5. **MsgPack Numbers Encode**: Tests the performance of encoding numbers using MsgPack.
6. **msgpack string decode**: Tests the performance of decoding a string encoded in MsgPack.

**Library Used**

The `msgpack-lite` library is used for MsgPack encoding and decoding.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None are mentioned.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between JSON and MsgPack, consider the trade-off between:

* **Human-readability**: JSON is more readable than MsgPack.
* **Compactness**: MsgPack is generally more compact than JSON.
* **Performance**: MsgPack can be faster for large datasets due to its binary-based format.

**Benchmark Results**

The provided benchmark results show the performance of each test case on a specific browser and device platform. The results are measured in executions per second (FPS).

In general, MsgPack performs better than JSON for larger datasets, but JSON may have an advantage in terms of human-readability and ease of implementation.

**Alternatives**

Other data serialization formats that can be used instead of JSON and MsgPack include:

* **Protocol Buffers**: A binary-based format developed by Google.
* **Thrift**: A language-agnostic system for serializing structured data.
* **Avro**: A binary-based format designed to handle complex data structures.

Each alternative has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on the specific use case and requirements.

msgpack-lite vs. JSON-decode (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: `MsgPack Strings Encode vs JSON Strings Encode vs MsgPack Numbers Encode vs JSON Numbers Encode vs JSON string decode vs msgpack string decode`

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

MsgPack Strings Encode

JSON Strings Encode

MsgPack Numbers Encode

JSON Numbers Encode

JSON string decode

msgpack string decode

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 26 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 21 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

msgpack-lite vs. JSON-decode (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: MsgPack Strings Encode vs JSON Strings Encode vs MsgPack Numbers Encode vs JSON Numbers Encode vs JSON string decode vs msgpack string decode

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

MsgPack Strings Encode

JSON Strings Encode

MsgPack Numbers Encode

JSON Numbers Encode

JSON string decode

msgpack string decode

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 26 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 21 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `MsgPack Strings Encode vs JSON Strings Encode vs MsgPack Numbers Encode vs JSON Numbers Encode vs JSON string decode vs msgpack string decode`