If the author cares, I can’t read everything on this page. The command snippets have a “BASH” pill in the top left that covers up the command I’m supposed to run. And then there are, I guess topic headings or something that are white-on-white text, so honestly I don’t know what they say or what they are.
A Faster Alternative to Jq
131–140 of 281 posts
Re: A Faster Alternative to Jq
#132I wonder so often about many new CLI tools whose primary selling point is their speed over other tools. Yet I personally have not encountered any case where a tool like jq feels incredibly slow, and I would feel the urge to find something else. What do people do all day that existing tools are no longer enough? Or is it that kind of "my new terminal opens 107ms faster now, and I don't notice it, but I simply feel bet…
Not every use case of jq is a person using it interactively in their terminal, believe it or not.
Re: A Faster Alternative to Jq
#133Having used `jq` and `yq` (which followed from the former, in spirit), I have never had to complain about performance of the _latter_ which an order of magnitude (or several) _slower_ than the former. So if there's something faster than `jq`, it's laudable that the author of the faster tool accomplished such a goal, but in the broader context I'd say the performance benefit would be required by a niche slice of the u…
Yeah, turns out not everyone uses these tools the way you do. Weird!
Re: A Faster Alternative to Jq
#134I wonder so often about many new CLI tools whose primary selling point is their speed over other tools. Yet I personally have not encountered any case where a tool like jq feels incredibly slow, and I would feel the urge to find something else. What do people do all day that existing tools are no longer enough? Or is it that kind of "my new terminal opens 107ms faster now, and I don't notice it, but I simply feel bet…
Not every use case of jq is a person using it interactively in their terminal, believe it or not.
If somebody needs performance, they probably shouldn't be calling out to a separate process for json of all things, no?
(Honestly, who even still writes shell scripts? Have a coding agent write the thing in a real scripting language at least, they aren't phased by the boilerplate of constructing pipelines with python or whatever. I haven't written a shell script in over a year now.)
Re: A Faster Alternative to Jq
#135I wonder so often about many new CLI tools whose primary selling point is their speed over other tools. Yet I personally have not encountered any case where a tool like jq feels incredibly slow, and I would feel the urge to find something else. What do people do all day that existing tools are no longer enough? Or is it that kind of "my new terminal opens 107ms faster now, and I don't notice it, but I simply feel bet…
Deal with really big log files, mostly. If you work at a hyperscaler, service log volume borders on the insane, and while there is a whole pile of tooling around logs, often there's no real substitute for pulling a couple of terabytes locally and going to town on them.
> often there's no real substitute for pulling a couple of terabytes locally and going to town on them.
Fully agree. I already know the locations of the logs on-disk, and ripgrep - or at worst, grep with LC_ALL=C - is much, much faster than any aggregation tool.
If I need to compare different machines, or do complex projections, then sure, external tooling is probably easier. But for the case of “I know roughly when a problem occurred / a text pattern to match,” reading the local file is faster.
Re: A Faster Alternative to Jq
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The vast majority of Linux kernel performance improvement patches probably have way less of a real world impact than this. unlikely given that the number they are multiplying by every improvement is far higher than "times jq is run in some pipeline". Even 0.1% improvement in kernel is probably far far higher impact than this
Jq is run a ton by AIs, and that is only increasing.
I can't take seriously any talk about performance if the tools are going to shell out. It's just not a bottleneck.
Re: A Faster Alternative to Jq
#137Jq's syntax is so arcane I can never remember it and always need to look up how to get a value from simple JSON.
Re: A Faster Alternative to Jq
#138I appreciate performance as much as the next person; but I see this endless battle to measure things in ns/us/ms as performative. Sure there are 0.000001% edge cases where that MIGHT be the next big bottleneck. I see the same thing repeated in various front end tooling too. They all claim to be _much_ faster than their counterpart. 9/10 whatever tooling you are using now will be perfectly fine. Example; I use grep a…
Whenever you have this kind of impressions on some development, here are my 2 cents: just think "I'm not the target audience". And that's fine. The difference between 2ms and 0.2ms might sound unneeded, or even silly to you. But somebody, somewhere, is doing stream processing of TB-sized JSON objects, and they will care. These news are for them.
Who is the target audience? I truly wonder who will process TB-sized data using jq? Either it's in a database already, in which case you're using the database to process the data, or you're putting it in a database.
Either way, I have really big doubts that there will be ever a significant amount of people who'd choose jq for that.
Re: A Faster Alternative to Jq
#139Quick question: Isn't the construction of a NFA - DFA a O(2^n) algorithm? If a JSON file has a couple hundred values, its equivalent NFA will have a similar amount, and the DFA will have 2^100 states, so I must be missing something.
theory is one thing but the cpu cache is the real bottleneck here... here is a small visual breakdown of how these arrays look in memory and why pointer chasing is so expensive compared to the actual logic: https://vectree.io/c/json-array-memory-indexing basically the double jump to find values in the heap is what slows down these tools most
I can see that in practice the bottleneck isn't the automata construction, I'm just curious of how the construction is approached with such a super-exponential conversion algorithm
Re: A Faster Alternative to Jq
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not every use case of jq is a person using it interactively in their terminal, believe it or not.
If somebody needs performance, they probably shouldn't be calling out to a separate process for json of all things, no? (Honestly, who even still writes shell scripts? Have a coding agent write the thing in a real scripting language at least, they aren't phased by the boilerplate of constructing pipelines with python or whatever. I haven't written a shell script in over a year now.)
If you’re writing the script to be used by multiple people, or on multiple systems, or for CI runners, or in containers, etc. then there’s no guarantee of having Python (mostly for the container situation, but still), much less of its version. It’s far too easy to accidentally use a feature or syntax that you took for granted, because who would still be using 3.7 today, anyway? I say this from painful recent experience.
Plus, for any script that’s going to be fetching or posting anything over a network, the LLM will almost certainly want to include requests, so now you either have to deal with dependencies, or make it use urllib.
In contrast, there’s an extremely high likelihood of the environment having a POSIX-compatible interpreter, so as long as you don’t use bash-isms (or zsh-isms, etc.), the script will probably work. For network access, the odds of it having curl are also quite high, moreso (especially in containers) than Python.