purejq 0.2.1

A pure Python implementation of jq

purejq

jq, as a pure Python library. No C extension, no binary: if Python runs, purejq runs — Pyodide/WASM, sandboxes, Lambda, anywhere pip install is all you get.

pip install purejq

import purejq

purejq.first(".users[] | select(.age > 26) | .name", data)   # work on your dicts directly
prog = purejq.compile("group_by(.team) | map(length)")        # compile once, run many
prog.first(batch)

echo '{"a":[1,2,3]}' | purejq '.a | map(. * 2)'               # familiar CLI, same flags

Why purejq

• Embedding jq in Python? purejq is 6–40x faster than the C bindings. The jq PyPI package serializes your data to JSON text and back on every call; purejq evaluates directly on Python objects.
• On big files, the CLI beats the C jq binary end-to-end. Large-file runs are dominated by JSON parsing, and CPython's C-backed parser is faster than jq's.
• It's real jq: 751/781 cases (96.2%) of jq's own test suite pass — the suite is vendored in this repo and run in CI on every commit.

Where C jq still wins: raw filter throughput on already-parsed streams in shell pipelines. If you can install binaries and that's your workload, use jq.

Benchmarks

Measured with tools/bench.py: M-series MacBook, CPython 3.13, jq 1.8.1 (native arm64), median of 7 runs, and every workload's output verified byte-identical against the jq binary first. Reproduce both: python3 tools/bench.py 1000000 --verify.

Embedded in Python — 100k-object array, already parsed, in-process:

workload	purejq	jq PyPI (C bindings)
field-access stream	9 ms	368 ms
filter + count	55 ms	442 ms
map + aggregate	18 ms	444 ms
group_by	112 ms	704 ms
transform + sort	136 ms	899 ms
regex filter	127 ms	747 ms

The binding numbers are its best case (JSON text input); passing Python objects, its usual mode, is another ~10% slower.

Command line, end to end — 93 MB file (1M objects), parse + filter + output:

workload	purejq	jq 1.8 (C binary)
single lookup	0.51 s	1.68 s
filter + count	1.08 s	1.96 s
group_by	2.32 s	3.89 s

purejq CLI measured with the optional orjson extra (pip install 'purejq[speed]'); with stdlib json alone it is ~25–35% slower and still ahead on these workloads.

Loading large JSON into Python: the 93 MB file parses in 0.73 s with stdlib json (128 MB/s) or 0.43 s with orjson (219 MB/s) — input loading is C-speed either way and scales linearly.

PyPy (100k objects, same code, no changes): filter + count 13 ms, map + aggregate 2 ms, group_by 33 ms, transform + sort 70 ms — roughly another 2–9x over CPython for heavy workloads.

How it's fast, in one line: programs compile once into Python closures with static binding and single-output fast paths — evaluation never re-walks the AST, and common shapes skip generator machinery entirely.

jq compatibility

751/781 of jq's official test suite. Every remaining difference is listed in expected_failures.txt; they fall into three buckets:

• the module system (import/include) is not implemented yet
• integers are exact (arbitrary precision, like gojq) instead of rounding to doubles — deliberate
• a few error-message wordings differ

Everything else is there: paths and all assignment operators, reduce/foreach, try/catch, label/break, ?// destructuring, string interpolation, @formats, regex builtins, streaming (tostream/fromstream), dates, and jq 1.8 additions.

CLI flags: -n -r -j -c -s -e -f --arg --argjson. Outputs are lazy iterators — purejq.compile("repeat(. * 2)").run(1) happily yields forever.

Compatibility

CPython 3.9–3.14 and PyPy, zero runtime dependencies, enforced by CI on every push.

Contributing & internals

See CONTRIBUTING.md — the conformance suite is the scoreboard, tools/bench.py is the speedometer.

License

MIT