> Having used `jq` and `yq`
replyIf you don't mind me asking, which yq? There's a Go variant and a Python pass-through variant, the latter also including xq and tomlq.
Integrating with server software, the performance is nice to have, as you can have say 100 kRPS requests coming in that need some jq-like logic. For CLI tool, like you said, the performance of any of them is ok, for most of the cases.
replyjq is probably faster than storage, the network, compression, or something else in your stack and not your bottleneck.
replyI use jq to grind through gigabytes of GeoJSON files exported from ArcGIS, as an ETL stage. It takes a long time.
replyYeah, turns out not everyone uses these tools the way you do. Weird!
reply[dead]
reply