Each of the charts below show the performance across several different JSON implementations:
JSONv1
isencoding/json
atv1.21.1
JSONv2
isgithub.com/go-json-experiment/json
atv0.0.0-20230906215633-699550ab4a68
JSONIterator
isgithub.com/json-iterator/go
atv1.1.12
SegmentJSON
isgithub.com/segmentio/encoding/json
atv0.3.6
GoJSON
isgithub.com/goccy/go-json
atv0.10.2
SonicJSON
isgithub.com/bytedance/sonic
atv1.10.1
The Go toolchain used is v1.21.1
.
Based on the module proxy as of 2023-07-01, the relative popularity of each:
JSONv1
has 1.3M importsJSONv2
has 47 importsJSONIterator
has 17k importsSegmentJSON
has 347 importsGoJSON
has 2k importsSonicJSON
has 517 imports
Note that JSONv2
deliberately dissuades users from depending on the package
as it is an experiment and is subject to major breaking changes.
Benchmarks were run across various datasets:
CanadaGeometry
is a GeoJSON (RFC 7946) representation of Canada. It contains many JSON arrays of arrays of two-element arrays of numbers.CITMCatalog
contains many JSON objects using numeric names.SyntheaFHIR
is sample JSON data from the healthcare industry. It contains many nested JSON objects with mostly string values, where the set of unique string values is relatively small.TwitterStatus
is the JSON response from the Twitter API. It contains a mix of all different JSON kinds, where string values are a mix of both single-byte ASCII and multi-byte Unicode.GolangSource
is a simple tree representing the Go source code. It contains many nested JSON objects, each with the same schema.StringUnicode
contains many strings with multi-byte Unicode runes.
All of the implementations other than JSONv1
and JSONv2
make
extensive use of unsafe
. As such, we expect those to generally be faster,
but at the cost of memory and type safety. SonicJSON
goes a step even further
and uses just-in-time compilation to generate machine code specialized
for the Go type being marshaled or unmarshaled.
Also, SonicJSON
does not validate JSON strings for valid UTF-8,
and so gains a notable performance boost on datasets with multi-byte Unicode.
Benchmarks are performed based on the default marshal and unmarshal behavior
of each package. Note that JSONv2
aims to be safe and correct by default,
which may not be the most performant strategy.
JSONv2
has several semantic changes relative to JSONv1
that
impacts performance:
-
When marshaling,
JSONv2
no longer sorts the keys of a Go map. This will improve performance. -
When marshaling or unmarshaling,
JSONv2
always checks to make sure JSON object names are unique. This will hurt performance, but is more correct. -
When marshaling or unmarshaling,
JSONv2
always shallow copies the underlying value for a Go interface and shallow copies the key and value for entries in a Go map. This is done to keep the value as addressable so thatJSONv2
can call methods and functions that operate on a pointer receiver. This will hurt performance, but is more correct.
All of the charts are unit-less since the values are normalized
relative to JSONv1
, which is why JSONv1
always has a value of 1.
A lower value is better (i.e., runs faster).
Benchmarks were performed on an AMD Ryzen 9 5900X.
- This compares marshal performance when serializing from concrete types.
- The
JSONv1
implementation is close to optimal (without the use ofunsafe
). - Relative to
JSONv1
,JSONv2
is around performance parity. - Relative to
JSONIterator
,JSONv2
is up to 1.4x faster. - Relative to
SegmentJSON
,JSONv2
is up to 1.9x slower. - Relative to
GoJSON
,JSONv2
is up to 1.5x slower. - Relative to
SonicJSON
,JSONv2
is about 2.2x to 3.9x slower (ignoringStringUnicode
sinceSonicJSON
does not validate UTF-8). - For
JSONv1
andJSONv2
, marshaling from concrete types is mostly limited by the performance of Go reflection.
- This compares marshal performance when serializing from
any
,map[string]any
, and[]any
types. - Relative to
JSONv1
,JSONv2
is about 1.4x to 3.8x faster. - Relative to
JSONIterator
,JSONv2
is about 1.1x to 2.6x faster. - Relative to
SegmentJSON
,JSONv2
is about 1.1x to 1.9x faster. - Relative to
GoJSON
,JSONv2
is about 1.4x to 3.0x faster. - Relative to
SonicJSON
,JSONv2
is around performance parity (ignoringStringUnicode
sinceSonicJSON
does not validate UTF-8). JSONv2
is generally as fast or faster than the alternatives. One advantange is because it does not sort the keys for amap[string]any
, while alternatives (exceptSonicJSON
andJSONIterator
) do sort the keys.
- This compares performance when marshaling from a
jsontext.Value
. This mostly exercises the underlying encoder and hides the cost of Go reflection. - Relative to
JSONv1
,JSONv2
is about 3.6x to 9.1x faster. JSONIterator
is blazingly fast because it does not validate whether the raw value is valid and simply copies it to the output.- Relative to
SegmentJSON
,JSONv2
is about 1.4x to 2.7x faster. - Relative to
GoJSON
,JSONv2
is 1.1x slower or up to 2.2x faster. - Relative to
SonicJSON
,JSONv2
is 1.3x slower or up to 1.5x faster. - Aside from
JSONIterator
,JSONv2
is generally as fast or fastest.
- This compares unmarshal performance when deserializing into concrete types.
- Relative to
JSONv1
,JSONv2
is about 2.5x to 8.4x faster. - Relative to
JSONIterator
,JSONv2
is about 0.8x to 1.5x slower. - Relative to
SegmentJSON
,JSONv2
is up to 2.1x slower. - Relative to
GoJSON
,JSONv2
is about 1.3x to 1.7x slower. - Relative to
SonicJSON
,JSONv2
is up to 2.9x slower (ignoringStringUnicode
sinceSonicJSON
does not validate UTF-8). - For
JSONv1
andJSONv2
, unmarshaling into concrete types is mostly limited by the performance of Go reflection.
- This compares unmarshal performance when deserializing into
any
,map[string]any
, and[]any
types. - Relative to
JSONv1
,JSONv2
is about 1.8x to 5.0x faster. - Relative to
JSONIterator
,JSONv2
is up to 1.9x faster. - Relative to
SegmentJSON
,JSONv2
is about 1.5 to 3.4x faster. - Relative to
GoJSON
,JSONv2
is up to 1.4x faster. - Relative to
SonicJSON
,JSONv2
is up to 1.3x slower (ignoringStringUnicode
sinceSonicJSON
does not validate UTF-8). - Aside from
SonicJSON
,JSONv2
is generally just as fast or faster than all the alternatives.
- This compares performance when unmarshaling into a
jsontext.Value
. This mostly exercises the underlying decoder and hides away most of the cost of Go reflection. - Relative to
JSONv1
,JSONv2
is about 9.3x to 17.2x faster. - Relative to
JSONIterator
,JSONv2
is up to 2.2x faster. - Relative to
SegmentJSON
,JSONv2
is 1.7x slower or up to 1.9x faster. - Relative to
GoJSON
,JSONv2
is 1.9x slower or up to 1.8x faster. - Relative to
SonicJSON
,JSONv2
is up to 1.9x faster (ignoringStringUnicode
sinceSonicJSON
does not validate UTF-8). JSONv1
takes a lexical scanning approach, which performs a virtual function call for every byte of input. In contrast,JSONv2
makes heavy use of iterative and linear parsing logic (with extra complexity to resume parsing when encountering segmented buffers).JSONv2
is comparable to the alternatives that useunsafe
. Generally it is faster, but sometimes it is slower.
When reading from an io.Reader
and writing to an io.Writer
,
a JSON implementation should not need a buffer much larger than
the largest JSON token encountered within the entire JSON value.
For example, marshaling and unmarshaling a [{},{},{},{},{},...]
that is a gigabyte in size should not need to buffer the entire JSON array,
but only enough to buffer each individual {
or }
.
An implementation with true streaming support will use
a fixed amount of memory regardless of the total size of the JSON value.
The following implementations have true streaming support:
Implementation | Marshal | Unmarshal |
---|---|---|
JSONv1 | ❌ | ❌ |
JSONv2 | ✔️ | ✔️ |
JSONIterator | ❌ | ✔️ |
SegmentJSON | ❌ | ❌ |
GoJSON | ❌ | ❌ |
SonicJSON | ❌ | ❌ |
JSONv2
was designed from the beginning to have true streaming support.JSONIterator
(perhaps in honor of the "iterator" in its name) prioritize true streaming, but only for unmarshaling.
See TestStreaming
for more information.
A package may be fast, but it must still be correct and realiable.
GoJSON
non-deterministically fails on some tests in this module:--- FAIL: TestRoundtrip/TwitterStatus/Interface/GoJSON/MarshalWrite (0.04s) Marshal error: encoder: opcode has not been implemented
--- FAIL: TestRoundtrip/GolangSource/Interface/GoJSON/MarshalWrite (0.16s) Marshal error: opcode SliceEnd has not been implemented
--- FAIL: TestRoundtrip/GolangSource/Interface/GoJSON/Marshal Marshal error: invalid character ',' after object key
--- FAIL: TestRoundtrip/GolangSource/Interface/GoJSON/Marshal (0.16s) panic: runtime error: slice bounds out of range [19812224:1940444] goroutine 390 [running]: testing.tRunner.func1.2({0x132a580, 0xc002b56018}) go1.21.1/src/testing/testing.go:1545 +0x238 testing.tRunner.func1() go1.21.1/src/testing/testing.go:1548 +0x397 panic({0x132a580?, 0xc002b56018?}) go1.21.1/src/runtime/panic.go:914 +0x21f github.com/goccy/go-json/internal/encoder/vm.Run(0xc0035984e0, {0xc0035cc000?, 0x0?, 0x400?}, 0xc0034c4000?) github.com/goccy/[email protected]/internal/encoder/vm/vm.go:440 +0x26505 github.com/goccy/go-json.encodeRunCode(0x40?, {0xc0035cc000?, 0xc0035a8080?, 0x0?}, 0xc00012fd38?) github.com/goccy/[email protected]/encode.go:310 +0x56 github.com/goccy/go-json.encode(0xc0035984e0, {0x12c4760, 0xc00235ef20}) github.com/goccy/[email protected]/encode.go:235 +0x205 github.com/goccy/go-json.(*Encoder).encodeWithOption(0xc0035d5e60, 0xc0035984e0, {0x12c4760, 0xc00235ef20}, {0x0, 0x0, 0x49084f?}) github.com/goccy/[email protected]/encode.go:77 +0x129 github.com/goccy/go-json.(*Encoder).EncodeWithOption(0x1310600?, {0x12c4760, 0xc00235ef20}, {0x0, 0x0, 0x0}) github.com/goccy/[email protected]/encode.go:42 +0x8d github.com/goccy/go-json.(*Encoder).Encode(...) github.com/goccy/[email protected]/encode.go:34 jsonbench.glob..func17({0x15b1b20?, 0xc0035b23c0?}, {0x12c4760?, 0xc00235ef20?}) github.com/go-json-experiment/jsonbench/bench_test.go:112 +0x69 jsonbench.TestRoundtrip.func3(0xc002e44000) github.com/go-json-experiment/jsonbench/bench_test.go:159 +0x11f testing.tRunner(0xc002e44000, 0xc0008b9000) go1.21.1/src/testing/testing.go:1595 +0xff created by testing.(*T).Run in goroutine 44 go1.21.1/src/testing/testing.go:1648 +0x3ad exit status 2
--- FAIL: TestRoundtrip/StringUnicode/RawValue/GoJSON/Unmarshal (0.01s) panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference [signal SIGSEGV: segmentation violation code=0x1 addr=0x0 pc=0x1129b47] goroutine 483 [running]: testing.tRunner.func1.2({0x12e91c0, 0x1c6ce80}) go1.21.1/src/testing/testing.go:1545 +0x238 testing.tRunner.func1() go1.21.1/src/testing/testing.go:1548 +0x397 panic({0x12e91c0?, 0x1c6ce80?}) go1.21.1/src/runtime/panic.go:914 +0x21f github.com/goccy/go-json/internal/decoder.(*unmarshalJSONDecoder).DecodeStream(0x0, 0xc00388a000, 0xc00388c000?, 0xc003882030) github.com/goccy/[email protected]/internal/decoder/unmarshal_json.go:48 +0xe7 github.com/goccy/go-json.(*Decoder).DecodeWithOption(0xc00342cea8, {0x132b7a0, 0xc003882030}, {0x0, 0x0, 0xc00342ceb0?}) github.com/goccy/[email protected]/decode.go:233 +0xe6 github.com/goccy/go-json.(*Decoder).Decode(...) github.com/goccy/[email protected]/decode.go:199 jsonbench.glob..func18({0x15b1b40?, 0xc003886060}, {0x132b7a0, 0xc003882030}) github.com/go-json-experiment/jsonbench/bench_test.go:113 +0x12b jsonbench.TestRoundtrip.func4(0xc003431ba0) github.com/go-json-experiment/jsonbench/bench_test.go:188 +0x1d3 testing.tRunner(0xc003431ba0, 0xc003426580) go1.21.1/src/testing/testing.go:1595 +0xff created by testing.(*T).Run in goroutine 26 go1.21.1/src/testing/testing.go:1648 +0x3ad exit status 2
unexpected fault address 0x0 fatal error: fault [signal SIGSEGV: segmentation violation code=0x80 addr=0x0 pc=0x119d888] goroutine 83 [running]: runtime.throw({0x1368c41?, 0xc000028930?}) go1.21.1/src/runtime/panic.go:1077 +0x5c fp=0xc001a79900 sp=0xc001a798d0 pc=0x43aedc runtime.sigpanic() go1.21.1/src/runtime/signal_unix.go:875 +0x285 fp=0xc001a79960 sp=0xc001a79900 pc=0x451ee5 github.com/goccy/go-json/internal/encoder/vm.Run(0xc0019d2680, {0xc00002ec00?, 0xae0?, 0x12c92c0?}, 0x1?) github.com/goccy/[email protected]/internal/encoder/vm/vm.go:560 +0x15f88 fp=0xc001a7bcb8 sp=0xc001a79960 pc=0x119d888 github.com/goccy/go-json.encodeRunCode(0x40?, {0xc00002ec00?, 0xc0014e3580?, 0x0?}, 0xc000279d38?) github.com/goccy/[email protected]/encode.go:310 +0x56 fp=0xc001a7bcf0 sp=0xc001a7bcb8 pc=0x11af136 github.com/goccy/go-json.encode(0xc0019d2680, {0x12bc060, 0xc000297280}) github.com/goccy/[email protected]/encode.go:235 +0x205 fp=0xc001a7bd70 sp=0xc001a7bcf0 pc=0x11aecc5 github.com/goccy/go-json.(*Encoder).encodeWithOption(0xc001a7be60, 0xc0019d2680, {0x12bc060, 0xc000297280}, {0x0, 0x0, 0x49084f?}) github.com/goccy/[email protected]/encode.go:77 +0x129 fp=0xc001a7bdc8 sp=0xc001a7bd70 pc=0x11ae809 github.com/goccy/go-json.(*Encoder).EncodeWithOption(0x1310600?, {0x12bc060, 0xc000297280}, {0x0, 0x0, 0x0}) github.com/goccy/[email protected]/encode.go:42 +0x8d fp=0xc001a7be30 sp=0xc001a7bdc8 pc=0x11ae64d github.com/goccy/go-json.(*Encoder).Encode(...) github.com/goccy/[email protected]/encode.go:34 jsonbench.glob..func17({0x15b1b20?, 0xc001a67320?}, {0x12bc060?, 0xc000297280?}) github.com/go-json-experiment/jsonbench/bench_test.go:112 +0x69 fp=0xc001a7bea8 sp=0xc001a7be30 pc=0x128ff69 jsonbench.TestRoundtrip.func3(0xc001a81860) github.com/go-json-experiment/jsonbench/bench_test.go:159 +0x11f fp=0xc001a7bf70 sp=0xc001a7bea8 pc=0x12910bf testing.tRunner(0xc001a81860, 0xc0004f5800) go1.21.1/src/testing/testing.go:1595 +0xff fp=0xc001a7bfc0 sp=0xc001a7bf70 pc=0x516fff testing.(*T).Run.func1() go1.21.1/src/testing/testing.go:1648 +0x25 fp=0xc001a7bfe0 sp=0xc001a7bfc0 pc=0x517f85 runtime.goexit() go1.21.1/src/runtime/asm_amd64.s:1650 +0x1 fp=0xc001a7bfe8 sp=0xc001a7bfe0 pc=0x470761 created by testing.(*T).Run in goroutine 39 go1.21.1/src/testing/testing.go:1648 +0x3ad
runtime: marked free object in span 0x7fe644a065b0, elemsize=896 freeindex=0 (bad use of unsafe.Pointer? try -d=checkptr) 0xc000142000 alloc marked 0xc000142380 alloc unmarked 0xc000142700 alloc marked 0xc000142a80 free unmarked 0xc000142e00 free unmarked 0xc000143180 free unmarked 0xc000143500 alloc marked 0xc000143880 free marked zombie 0x000000c000143880: 0x0000000000000017 0x000000c0001438f8 0x000000c000143890: 0x000000c000143ad8 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c0001438a0: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c0001438b0: 0x0000000000000000 0x00000000012e4f80 0x000000c0001438c0: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c0001438d0: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c0001438e0: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c0001438f0: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000001000000013 0x000000c000143900: 0x000000c000143970 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143910: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143920: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143930: 0x00000000012c9000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143940: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143950: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000001 0x000000c000143960: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143970: 0x0000000000000008 0x000000c0001439e8 0x000000c000143980: 0x000000c000143ad8 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143990: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c0001439a0: 0x0000000000000000 0x00000000012dc620 0x000000c0001439b0: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c0001439c0: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c0001439d0: 0x0000000000000002 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c0001439e0: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000002000000001 0x000000c0001439f0: 0x000000c000143a60 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143a00: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143a10: 0x0000000000000000 0x0004000000000000 0x000000c000143a20: 0x00000000012dc620 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143a30: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000800000000 0x000000c000143a40: 0x0000000000000001 0x0000000000000003 0x000000c000143a50: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143a60: 0x0000000000000007 0x000000c0001438f8 0x000000c000143a70: 0x000000c000143ad8 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143a80: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143a90: 0x0000000000000000 0x00000000012c9000 0x000000c000143aa0: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143ab0: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143ac0: 0x0000000000000004 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143ad0: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000009 0x000000c000143ae0: 0x000000c000143b50 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143af0: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143b00: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143b10: 0x00000000012e4f80 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143b20: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143b30: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000005 0x000000c000143b40: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143b50: 0x000000400000000d 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143b60: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143b70: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143b80: 0x0000000000000000 0x00000000012e4f80 0x000000c000143b90: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143ba0: 0x0000005000000048 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143bb0: 0x0000000000000006 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143bc0: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143bd0: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143be0: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000c000143bf0: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0xc000143c00 free unmarked fatal error: found pointer to free object
According to RFC 8259, section 8.1, a JSON value must be encoded using UTF-8.
The following table shows how each implementation handles invalid UTF-8:
Implementation | Marshal | Unmarshal |
---|---|---|
JSONv1 | ||
JSONv2 | ✔️ rejected | ✔️ rejected |
JSONIterator | ❌ ignored | |
SegmentJSON | ||
GoJSON | ❌ ignored | |
SonicJSON | ❌ ignored | ❌ ignored |
Notes:
- "Rejected" means that the presence of invalid UTF-8 results in an error. This is the most correct behavior.
- "Replaced" means that invalid UTF-8 bytes is replaced with
utf8.RuneError
. This can be arguably correct behavior for marshaling since it produces valid UTF-8 in the output, but silently corrupts strings with invalid UTF-8. This is incorrect behavior for unmarshaling since it treats non-complaint JSON as valid. - "Ignored" means that invalid UTF-8 is not checked for at all and is passed through during serialization. This is incorrect behavior.
- Only
JSONv2
rejects invalid UTF-8 for both marshaling and unmarshaling. It provides anAllowInvalidUTF8
option to opt into the "replaced" behavior. JSONv1
andSegmentJSON
both follow the "replaced" behavior.JSONIterator
andSegment
use the "replaced" behavior for marshaling and the incorrect "ignored" behavior for unmarshaling.SonicJSON
alone uses the incorrect "ignored" behavior for both marshaling and unmarshaling.
See TestValidateUTF8
for more information.
RFC 8259, section 4 specifies that handling of a JSON object with duplicate names results in undefined behavior where compliant parsers may use the first member, the last member, all the members, or report an error. RFC 7493, section 2.3 specifies that JSON objects must not have duplicate names. Rejecting duplicate object names is more correct, but incurs a performance cost verifying this property.
The following table shows how each implementation handles duplicate object names:
Implementation | Marshal | Unmarshal |
---|---|---|
JSONv1 | ❌ allowed | ❌ allowed |
JSONv2 | ✔️ rejected | ✔️ rejected |
JSONIterator | ❌ allowed | ❌ allowed |
SegmentJSON | ❌ allowed | ❌ allowed |
GoJSON | ❌ allowed | ❌ allowed |
SonicJSON | ❌ allowed | ❌ allowed |
See TestDuplicateNames
for more information.
"Parsing JSON is a Minefield 💣" (posted 2016-10-26) performed one of the first thorough comparisons of JSON parsers and their behavior on various edge-cases. At the time, RFC 7159 was the authoritative standard, but has since been superseded by RFC 8259. Consequently, the expected results of some of the test cases from the article were changed to be more compliant with RFC 8259.
The following table shows the number of test case failures for each implementation when tested against RFC 8259:
Implementation | String | Number | Object | Array | Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
JSONv1 | ❌ 10x | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ |
JSONv2 | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ |
JSONIterator | ❌ 10x | ❌ 4x | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ |
SegmentJSON | ❌ 10x | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ |
GoJSON | ❌ 30x | ❌ 52x | ❌ 20x | ❌ 17x | ❌ 10x |
SonicJSON | ❌ 28x | ✔️ | ✔️ | ❌ 1x | ✔️ |
JSONv1
,JSONIterator
, andSegmentJSON
all fail on the same set of JSON string tests that are related to UTF-8 validation. Presumably,JSONIterator
andSegmentJSON
copiedJSONv1
's behavior because they aim to be drop-in replacements forJSONv1
.GoJSON
andSonicJSON
fails many more JSON string tests both in areas that relate to UTF-8 validation, but also in cases where the input is clearly not a valid JSON string (as agreed upon by the other implementations).JSONIterator
fails some JSON number tests. Some of these relate to values that are vastly beyond the representation of numeric Go types. These failures are technically permitted by RFC 8259, section 9 when transforming JSON into another data representation. However, our tests were parsing the input into ajsontext.Value
, where the limits of numeric precision should not play a relevant role. In other cases,JSONIterator
permitted parsing of JSON numbers that are not valid (as agreed upon by the other implementations).GoJSON
fails many other test cases in all categories.
RFC 7493 is compatible with RFC 8259 in that it makes strict decisions about behavior that RFC 8259 leaves undefined. In particular, it rejects escaped surrogate pairs that are invalid and rejects JSON object with duplicate names.
The following table shows additional test case failures for each implementation when tested against RFC 7493:
Implementation | String | Number | Object | Array | Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
JSONv1 | ❌ 9x | ✔️ | ❌ 3x | ✔️ | ✔️ |
JSONv2 | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ |
JSONIterator | ❌ 9x | ✔️ | ❌ 3x | ✔️ | ✔️ |
SegmentJSON | ❌ 9x | ✔️ | ❌ 3x | ✔️ | ✔️ |
GoJSON | ❌ 9x | ✔️ | ❌ 3x | ✔️ | ✔️ |
SonicJSON | ❌ 9x | ✔️ | ❌ 3x | ✔️ | ✔️ |
JSONv2
passes all cases since it targets compliance with RFC 7493.
See TestParseSuite
for more information.
A JSON implementation should not trust that the output of a MarshalJSON
method
is valid JSON nor formatted in the same way as surrounding JSON.
Consequently, it should parse and reformat the JSON output to be consistent.
The following table shows which implementations validate MarshalJSON
output:
Implementation | Validates |
---|---|
JSONv1 | ✔️ yes |
JSONv2 | ✔️ yes |
JSONIterator | ❌ no |
SegmentJSON | ✔️ yes |
GoJSON | ✔️ yes |
SonicJSON | ✔️ yes |
JSONIterator
naively mem-copies the result ofMarshalJSON
to the JSON output, resulting in drastic performance gains over alternative implementations.
See TestValidateMarshalJSON
for more information.
RFC 8259 specifies that JSON objects are an "unordered collection". Thus, a compliant JSON marshaler need not serialize Go maps entries in any particular order.
The JSONv1
implementation historically sorted keys, which consequently
set the precedence for other JSON implementations to do likewise.
The JSONv2
implementation no longer sorts keys for better performance
and because it does not violate any specified facet of correctness.
The following table shows which implementations deterministically marshal maps:
Implementation | Deterministic |
---|---|
JSONv1 | ✔️ yes |
JSONv2 | ❌ no |
JSONIterator | ❌ no |
SegmentJSON | ✔️ yes |
GoJSON | ✔️ yes |
SonicJSON | ❌ no |
See TestMapDeterminism
for more information.
Implementations differ regarding how much of the output value is modified when an unmarshaling error is encountered.
There are generally two reasonable behaviors:
- Make no mutating changes to the output if the input is invalid.
- Make as many changes as possible up until the input becomes invalid.
The following table shows what changes are observable if the input is invalid:
Implementation | Observable Changes |
---|---|
JSONv1 | ✔️ none |
JSONv2 | |
JSONIterator | |
SegmentJSON | ❌ some |
GoJSON | ❌ some |
SonicJSON |
- The
JSONv1
implementation alone takes the first approach. This fundamentally requires a two-pass parsing, where the first pass validates the JSON input, and the second pass does the actual unmarshal work. All other implementations abandon this semantic since it is non-performant. JSONv2
,JSONIterator
, andSonic
take the second approach of unmarshaling into the output as much as possible up until an error is encountered.SegmentJSON
andGoJSON
hold to an odd position between the two extremes.
See TestUnmarshalErrors
for more information.
For use in embedded or mobile applications, a small binary size is a priority.
The following table shows the binary sizes of each JSON implementation for
a simple Go program that just links in json.Marshal
and json.Unmarshal
.
These were built with GOOS=linux
and GOARCH=amd64
.
Implementation | Size |
---|---|
JSONv1 | 2.18 MiB |
JSONv2 | 2.89 MiB |
JSONIterator | 3.11 MiB |
SegmentJSON | 2.52 MiB |
GoJSON | 3.39 MiB |
SonicJSON | 24.7 MiB |
JSONv1
andJSONv2
are among the smallest because they only use Go reflection. Using an abstraction layer is slower, but avoids duplicated unsafe logic.JSONv2
is larger thanSegmentJSON
as it implements many additional features.SonicJSON
is the largest since it includes a just-in-time compiler.
See TestBinarySize
for more information.