Benchmark: 12121212212 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

12
let params = {a: undefined, b: null, c: false, d: 'a', e: 1}; Object.keys(params).reduce((urlParams, key) => { if (params[key] === undefined) return urlParams; return `${urlParams}${key}=${encodeURIComponent(String(params[key]))}&`; }, '?').slice(0, -1);
13
let params = {a: undefined, b: null, c: false, d: 'a', e: 1}; Object.keys(params).reduce((urlParams, key) => { if (params[key] === undefined) return urlParams; return `${urlParams}${urlParams !== '' ? '&' : '?'}${key}=${encodeURIComponent(String(params[key]))}`; }, '');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
12
13

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases, each designed to measure the performance of different approaches for generating URL parameters from an object. The test case uses JavaScript and exploits various features of the language, including:

1.  **Undefined values**: The test checks how browsers handle undefined values in URL parameter generation.
2.  **Null values**: It also checks how browsers handle null values in URL parameter generation.
3.  **String encoding**: The test ensures that strings are properly encoded for use in URLs.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two different approaches:

1.  **Approach 1**: This approach uses the `Object.keys()` method to iterate over the object's keys and appends each key-value pair to a URL string using template literals (`${urlParams}${key}=${encodeURIComponent(String(params[key]))}&`). If the value is undefined, it returns an empty string.
2.  **Approach 2**: This approach uses a similar technique as Approach 1 but with some differences:
    *   It appends an '&' character only if `urlParams` is not empty or null (i.e., it starts with '?' instead of '').
    *   If the value is undefined, it returns an empty string.

**Pros and Cons**

Both approaches have their pros and cons:

*   **Approach 1:**
    *   Pros:
        *   Simpler implementation.
        *   Easier to understand for beginners.
    *   Cons:
        *   May perform slightly worse due to unnecessary encoding of empty strings.
*   **Approach 2:**
    *   Pros:
        *   More efficient since it only appends '&' when necessary.
    *   Cons:
        *   More complex implementation, making it harder for beginners to understand.

**Library and its purpose**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the provided code. However, some libraries might be used indirectly by relying on built-in JavaScript features like `encodeURIComponent()` or regular expressions (which is likely the case).

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The test case does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require a deep understanding of those concepts.

Now, let's move on to other alternatives:

1.  **Testing libraries**: There are several testing libraries available for JavaScript, such as Jest, Mocha, and Cypress, which provide more advanced features like parallel execution, assertion helpers, and reporting.
2.  **Benchmarking frameworks**: Some benchmarking frameworks, such as Benchmark.js or micro-benchmark, can help simplify the process of writing benchmarks by providing a higher-level API for creating test cases.

Overall, the provided JSON represents a basic benchmark test case that can be used to compare the performance of two different approaches for generating URL parameters from an object.

Related benchmarks:

12121212212 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 12 vs 13

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

12

13

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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