Rust Parsing Benchmarks

This repo tries to assess Rust parsing performance.

crate	parser type	action code	integration	input type	precedence climbing	parameterized rules	streaming input
chumsky	combinators	in source	library	&str	?	?	?
combine	combinators	in source	library	&str	?	?	?
grmtools	CFG	in grammar	library	?	?	?	?
lalrpop	LR(1)	in grammar	build script	&str	No	Yes	No
logos	lexer	in source	proc macro	&str, &[u8]	?	?	?
nom	combinators	in source	library	&[u8], custom	No	Yes	Yes
peg	PEG	in grammar	proc macro (block)	&str, &[T], custom	Yes	Yes	No
pest	PEG	external	proc macro (file)	&str	Yes	No	No
winnow	combinators	in source	library	&str, &[T], custom	No	Yes	Yes
yap	combinators	in source	library	&str, &[T], custom	No	Yes	?

Formerly, we compared:

• pom: lack of notoriety

Results

Name	Overhead (release)	Build (debug)	Parse (release)	Downloads	Version
null	0 KiB	202ms	4ms	-	-
chumsky	627 KiB	7s	361ms		v0.4.1
logos	172 KiB	5s	17ms		v0.4.1
grmtools	2,488 KiB	14s	163ms		v0.13.7
combine	178 KiB	4s	48ms		v3.8.1
lalrpop	1,474 KiB	12s	35ms		v0.20.2
nom	89 KiB	2s	68ms		v7.1.3
peg	71 KiB	2s	22ms		v0.8.3
pest	120 KiB	4s	53ms		v2.7.10
serde_json	46 KiB	3s	13ms		v1.0.119
winnow	71 KiB	2s	24ms		v0.6.13
yap	55 KiB	479ms	32ms		v0.12.0

System: Linux 5.4.0-170-generic (x86_64), rustc 1.79.0 (129f3b996 2024-06-10) w/ -j 8

Note:

• For more "Parse (release)" comparisons, see parser_benchmarks
• Parsers have not been validated and might have differing levels of quality (#5)

Running the Benchmarks

$ ./bench.py
$ ./format.py