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	&str, &[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	199ms	4ms	-	-
grmtools	2,526 KiB	13s	163ms		v0.13.8
chumsky	562 KiB	6s	331ms		v0.9.3
combine	184 KiB	4s	47ms		v3.8.1
lalrpop	1,496 KiB	13s	37ms		v0.22.0
logos	81 KiB	5s	17ms		v0.15.0
nom	98 KiB	3s	60ms		v8.0.0
peg	82 KiB	2s	21ms		v0.8.4
pest	130 KiB	4s	55ms		v2.7.15
serde_json	55 KiB	3s	14ms		v1.0.134
winnow	76 KiB	2s	28ms		v0.7.0
yap	56 KiB	456ms	31ms		v0.12.0

System: Linux 5.4.0-170-generic (x86_64), rustc 1.84.0 (9fc6b4312 2025-01-07) 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