Benchmark: [Object to querystring] URLSearchParams vs manual

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {
    user: "usr",
    tag: "usr#1234",
    discrim: 1234,
    verified: true,
}

Tests:

URLSearchParams
var querystring = new URLSearchParams(obj).toString();
Manual
var querystring = Object.entries(obj).map(([key, value]) => `${encodeURIComponent(key)}=${encodeURIComponent(value)}`).join("&");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
URLSearchParams
Manual

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/136.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 136 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
URLSearchParams	434159.8 Ops/sec
Manual	1197949.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to create a URL query string from an object: using the `URLSearchParams` library and doing it manually.

**Library: URLSearchParams**

`URLSearchParams` is a built-in JavaScript class that allows you to create and manipulate URL query strings. It was introduced in ECMAScript 6 (ES6) and provides a convenient way to work with query strings.

The purpose of using `URLSearchParams` is to abstract away the low-level details of creating a query string, making it easier to write readable and maintainable code.

**Manual Approach**

The manual approach involves manually iterating over the object's key-value pairs, encoding each value using `encodeURIComponent`, and joining them together with '&' as the separator.

This approach requires more manual effort but provides fine-grained control over the query string generation process. However, it can also lead to errors if not done correctly.

**Pros and Cons**

* **URLSearchParams**:
	+ Pros:
		- Concise and readable code
		- Less prone to errors due to built-in validation and normalization
	+ Cons:
		- May have performance overhead due to the use of an additional library
		- Limited control over the generated query string
* **Manual Approach**:
	+ Pros:
		- Fine-grained control over the query string generation process
		- Can be optimized for specific use cases or performance requirements
	+ Cons:
		- More error-prone due to manual iteration and encoding
		- May lead to code bloat or complexity

**Considerations**

When deciding between these approaches, consider the trade-off between readability, maintainability, and performance. If you need more control over the query string generation process, the manual approach might be a better fit. However, if you prioritize conciseness and ease of use, `URLSearchParams` is a good choice.

**Other Alternatives**

Besides these two approaches, there are other ways to create URL query strings in JavaScript:

* Using template literals or string concatenation with interpolation
* Utilizing libraries like Axios or the Fetch API for more complex queries
* Leveraging third-party libraries like qs or url-params

These alternatives might offer additional features, performance improvements, or simplified syntax, but may also come with their own set of trade-offs and complexities.

In this benchmark, the focus is on comparing the `URLSearchParams` library with a manual approach, making it easier for users to understand and reproduce the test results.

Related benchmarks:

[Object to querystring] URLSearchParams vs manual (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: URLSearchParams vs Manual

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

URLSearchParams

Manual

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):