ojg VS orjson

I found Jq to be difficult to use which is why Oj, https://github.com/ohler55/ojg is based on JSONPath. There still are a lot of options but it only takes a couple of help screens to figure out what the options are.

You might want to take a look at https://github.com/ohler55/ojg. It takes a different approach with a single pass parser. There are some performance benchmarks included on the README.md landing page.

I like the "Simple Encoding Notation" (SEN) of the underlying library: https://github.com/ohler55/ojg/blob/develop/sen.md

Another alternative is the oj app (ojg/cmd/oj) which is part of https://github.com/ohler55/ojg. It relies on JSONPath for extraction and manipulation of JSON.

I promise to add more examples but in the mean time there are the test files. The one for Unmarshal is https://github.com/ohler55/ojg/blob/develop/oj/unmashall_test.go

orjson is the fastest JSON library available for python. It natively manages dataclass objects, datetime, numpy and UUID objects.

As we began venturing down that road, a few things emerged that would constitute significant changes to some of the core parts of Litestar, but there were two things in particular that started a chain reaction of changes by opening up further possibilities: The new DTOs and our switch from orjson to msgspec.

In version 1.45.0, we introduced msgspec as our serialization backend, replacing orjson. This had some immediate performance benefits, but that's not the main reason we made the switch.

Doesn't orjson do that already?

orjson

For most cases, you would want to go with python’s standard json library which removes dependencies on other libraries. On other hand you could try out ujsonwhich is simple replacement for python’s json library. If you want more speed and also want dataclass, datetime, numpy, and UUID instances and you are ready to deal with more complex code, then you can try your hands on orjson

Try https://github.com/ijl/orjson. Not exactly sure if that can help.