Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
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
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
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):
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:
Spread vs Assing vs JSON
JSON.parse vs string.split 2
JSON.parse vs object literal
JSON.parse vs string.splitds
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?