Benchmark: Query Params Build

Script Preparation code:

var path = '/';
var values = Array(100).map((x, i) => ['key' + i, 'value' + i]);

Tests:

Join
path = [path, values.map(entry => entry.join('=')).join('&')].join('?');
Reduce
path += values.reduce((prev, curr) => (!prev ? `?${curr[0]}=${curr[1]}` : `${prev}&${curr[0]}=${curr[1]}`), '')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Join
Reduce

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.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, specifically measuring the performance of two different approaches to constructing URL query strings: `join()` and `reduce()`. The benchmark tests how efficiently these methods can concatenate key-value pairs with '&' in between, resulting in a valid URL.

**Options compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **`join()`**: This method is used to concatenate an array of strings with a specified separator (in this case, '&'). It's a simple and straightforward way to build the query string.
2. **`reduce()`**: This method applies a reduction function to each element in the array, accumulating a result that will be returned as the final concatenated string.

**Pros and Cons**

* `join()`: Pros:
	+ Easy to understand and implement.
	+ Fast and efficient for small arrays.
Cons:
	+ Can lead to stack overflow errors if used with very large arrays.
	+ May not work well with edge cases (e.g., consecutive '=' characters).
* `reduce()`**: Pros:
	+ Can handle large arrays without worrying about stack overflows.
	+ Allows for more control over the concatenation process through the reduction function.
Cons:
	+ More complex to understand and implement, especially for beginners.
	+ May require additional checks for edge cases.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's likely that the `Array.prototype.map()` method is used implicitly, which is a part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Special JS features/syntax**

There are some special JavaScript features/syntax being used:

* **Template literals**: The `String template literal` syntax (`${...}`) is used to insert values into strings. This feature is supported in modern browsers and Node.js.
* **Arrow functions**: The arrow function syntax (`(x, i) => ...`) is used for creating small, concise functions. This syntax is also widely supported.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for constructing URL query strings could be:

* **Using the `URLSearchParams` API**, which is a built-in API in modern browsers and Node.js.
* **Implementing a custom loop to concatenate key-value pairs**.
* **Using a library like Lodash**, which provides utility functions, including ones for working with arrays and strings.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics or trade-offs, depending on the specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Query Params Build (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Join vs Reduce

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Join

Reduce

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):