Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
eval vs json
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
json vs eval
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
json
jsonstr = '{ "expiration": "1970-01-01T00:00:00", \n\ "ref_block_num": 0, \n\ "ref_block_prefix": 0, \n\ "max_net_usage_words": 0, \n\ "max_cpu_usage_ms": 0, \n\ "delay_sec": 0, \n\ "context_free_actions": [], \n\ "actions": [{ \n\ "account": "eosio.token", \n\ "name": "transfer", \n\ "authorization": [{ \n\ "actor": "from", \n\ "permission": "active" \n\ } \n\ ], \n\ "data": "000000000020e95d00000000000000cd010000000000000000454f53000000000474657374" \n\ } \n\ ], \n\ "transaction_extensions": [] \n\ }'; v = JSON.parse(jsonstr)
eval
jsonstr = 'v = { "expiration": "1970-01-01T00:00:00", \n\ "ref_block_num": 0, \n\ "ref_block_prefix": 0, \n\ "max_net_usage_words": 0, \n\ "max_cpu_usage_ms": 0, \n\ "delay_sec": 0, \n\ "context_free_actions": [], \n\ "actions": [{ \n\ "account": "eosio.token", \n\ "name": "transfer", \n\ "authorization": [{ \n\ "actor": "from", \n\ "permission": "active" \n\ } \n\ ], \n\ "data": "000000000020e95d00000000000000cd010000000000000000454f53000000000474657374" \n\ } \n\ ], \n\ "transaction_extensions": [] \n\ }'; v = eval(jsonstr);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
json
eval
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and their pros and cons. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition consists of two test cases: 1. **"json"`: This test case uses `JSON.parse()` to parse a JSON string. 2. **"eval"`: This test case uses `eval()` to evaluate a string as JavaScript code. **What is being tested?** In both test cases, we have a similar input: ```json { "expiration": "1970-01-01T00:00:00", "ref_block_num": 0, "ref_block_prefix": 0, "max_net_usage_words": 0, "max_cpu_usage_ms": 0, "delay_sec": 0, "context_free_actions": [], "actions": [ { "account": "eosio.token", "name": "transfer", "authorization": [ {"actor": "from", "permission": "active"} ], "data": "000000000020e95d00000000000000cd010000000000000000454f53000000000474657374" } ], "transaction_extensions": [] } ``` The only difference between the two test cases is how the input is processed. **"json"`: This test case uses `JSON.parse()` to parse the JSON string. `JSON.parse()` takes a JSON string and returns a JavaScript object that represents the parsed data. **"eval"`: This test case uses `eval()` to evaluate the JSON string as JavaScript code. `eval()` executes the input string as if it were JavaScript code, returning a value that can be assigned to a variable (`v` in this case). **Pros and Cons of each approach** **"json"` (using `JSON.parse()`): Pros: * More predictable and controlled behavior * Easier to debug and maintain * Less prone to security vulnerabilities (since it's a standard, widely-used method for parsing JSON) Cons: * Can be slower due to the overhead of serializing and deserializing the data **"eval"` (using `eval()`): Pros: * Faster execution, since it can execute the code directly without serialization * More flexible, as it allows for arbitrary JavaScript code Cons: * Less predictable behavior, as the input string is executed as raw JavaScript code * Prone to security vulnerabilities, as malicious input could be executed (e.g., through injection attacks) * More difficult to debug and maintain **Library: `JSON`** The `JSON` library is a built-in standard in JavaScript that provides methods for working with JSON data. In this benchmark, we're using the `JSON.parse()` method from the `JSON` library to parse the input JSON string. **Special JS feature: None mentioned** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. **Other alternatives** If you wanted to compare performance between different methods for parsing JSON data, some alternative approaches might include: * Using a dedicated JSON parser library (e.g., `json-parse`) * Implementing a custom parser using regular expressions * Using a binary serialization format like Protocol Buffers However, these alternatives are not tested in this benchmark. I hope this explanation helps!
Related benchmarks:
JSON.parse() vs. eval()
eval vs json parse (working)
json parse vs eval
json parse vs eval - version 2
eval vs json parse only
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?