Benchmark: Object literal vs JSON.parse

Tests:

Object literal test
const literal = { foo: 42, bar: 1337 }; literal.foo;
Json parse
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 test
Json parse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 18_7 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/26.2 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 26 on iOS 18.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Object literal test	435856224.0 Ops/sec
Json parse	16820216.0 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 definition and individual test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The main goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches:

1. Creating an object literal (`{ foo: 42, bar: 1337 }`) and accessing its property (`literal.foo`).
2. Parsing a JSON string (`JSON.parse('{\"foo\":42,\"bar\":1337}')`) and accessing the resulting object's property (`json.foo`).

**Options compared**

The two approaches are being compared in terms of their execution speed, which is measured by the "ExecutionsPerSecond" value.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Object Literal Approach**
	* Pros:
		+ More human-readable and intuitive syntax.
		+ Can be more efficient for simple objects with a small number of properties.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires creating an object, which can lead to overhead if not necessary.
		+ May incur additional memory allocations or copying when accessing properties.
2. **JSON Parse Approach**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and flexible syntax for representing complex objects.
		+ Can be more efficient for large objects or frequently accessed properties.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires parsing the JSON string, which can lead to additional overhead and complexity.

**Library used**

In this benchmark, the `JSON` library is being used. The purpose of the `JSON` library is to parse and generate JSON data in a standardized format. In this case, it's used to parse a JSON string into an object.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special features or syntax mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, note that the use of template literals (`\r\n`) in the benchmark definitions is a relatively recent JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It allows for more concise string interpolation.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to implement this benchmark without using `JSON`, you could consider alternative methods such as:

1. Using the `eval()` function to parse the JSON string.
2. Implementing a custom parser for JSON data.
3. Using a dedicated JSON parsing library, such as `json-stringify-safe`.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity or performance overhead compared to using the built-in `JSON` library.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The provided benchmark preparation code is empty (`"Script Preparation Code": null, "Html Preparation Code": null`). This suggests that the benchmarking framework (MeasureThat.net) is handling the script and HTML setup for you.

Related benchmarks:

Object literal vs JSON.parse (version: 0)

As long as the JSON string is only evaluated once, the JSON.parse approach is much faster compared to the JavaScript object literal, especially for cold loads.

Comparing performance of: Object literal test vs Json parse

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object literal test

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):