Benchmark: Parsing array of numbers

Script Preparation code:

var test = "1,2,3";
var result = null;

Tests:

JSON parse
result = JSON.parse("[" + test + "]");
Split then number
result = test.split(',').map(Number);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON parse
Split then number

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/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JSON parse	9472133.0 Ops/sec
Split then number	8761046.0 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 JSON and explain what is being tested.

The main goal of this benchmark is to measure the performance difference between two approaches: parsing an array of numbers using `JSON.parse()` or splitting the string into individual numbers and then converting them to numbers using `Number()`. The script preparation code provides a sample input string `"1,2,3"` that will be used for testing.

**Options being compared:**

1. **JSON.parse()**: This method is used to parse a JSON-formatted string into a JavaScript object or array. In this case, it's being used to parse the string `[\" + test + \"]`, which contains an embedded expression `test`.
2. **Split then Number()**: This approach splits the input string into individual numbers using the comma separator and then converts each result to a number using the `Number()` function.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **JSON.parse():**
	* Pros:
		+ Efficient for parsing JSON data, as it's optimized for performance.
		+ Reduces the risk of errors due to the use of a standardized format.
	* Cons:
		+ May have overhead due to the additional processing required for string manipulation.
		+ Can be slower for very large input strings due to memory allocation and deallocation.
2. **Split then Number():**
	* Pros:
		+ Typically faster for small to medium-sized input strings, as it avoids the overhead of JSON parsing.
		+ More control over the parsing process, allowing for customization if needed.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be error-prone, especially for larger input strings or edge cases.
		+ Requires manual handling of errors and potential issues with comma separation.

**Library/Function usage:**

There is no explicit library mentioned in this benchmark. However, the `JSON.parse()` method is a built-in JavaScript function that's part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

There are a few notable features used in this benchmark:

1. **Template literals**: The string concatenation `"\" + test + \""` is using template literals, which were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This allows for more readable and efficient string manipulation.
2. **Array literal syntax**: The input string `[\" + test + \"]` is a JSON array, which is another feature introduced in ES6.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or comparing other methods, here are some possible directions:

1. Use `eval()` instead of `JSON.parse()`: This would involve parsing the string using the `eval()` function, which can be slower and less efficient than `JSON.parse()` due to security concerns.
2. Compare with a dedicated parsing library: While `JSON.parse()` is a built-in method, there are other libraries available that provide more control over the parsing process or optimized performance for specific use cases.
3. Explore other string manipulation methods: You could investigate using regular expressions or other string processing techniques to parse the input string.

Keep in mind that this benchmark is focused on comparing two specific approaches within JavaScript, so exploring alternative libraries or methods might not be as relevant to the specific test case at hand.

Related benchmarks:

Parsing array of numbers (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JSON parse vs Split then number

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JSON parse

Split then number

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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