Benchmark: Serialize form to check if modified

HTML Preparation code:

<form id="form">
  <input name="input1" type="text"/>
  <input name="input2" type="text"/>
  <input name="input3" type="text"/>
  <input name="input4" type="text"/>
  <input name="input5" type="text"/>
</form>

Script Preparation code:

var form = document.getElementById("form")

Tests:

Url search params
var params = new URLSearchParams(new FormData(form)).toString()
Manual
var string = JSON.stringify([...(new FormData(form)).entries()].reduce((acc, [key, value]) => { acc[key] = value return acc }, {}))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Url search params
Manual

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.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its various aspects.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two different approaches for serializing form data:

1. **URLSearchParams**: This approach uses the `URLSearchParams` API to create a search parameter string from the form data.
2. **Manual serialization**: This approach manually serializes the form data using `JSON.stringify()` and then reduces the resulting array of key-value pairs into an object.

**Options compared**

The two options are being compared in terms of their performance, with the goal of determining which one is faster for serializing form data.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **URLSearchParams**:
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to use and more readable than manual serialization.
		+ Provides a standardized way to serialize search parameters.
		+ Works well with modern browsers that support it.
	* Cons:
		+ May not work correctly in older browsers or environments.
		+ Can be slower than manual serialization for small forms.
2. **Manual serialization**:
	* Pros:
		+ Works consistently across all browsers and environments.
		+ Can be faster for small forms due to the overhead of `URLSearchParams`.
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose and less readable than using `URLSearchParams`.
		+ Requires manual management of key-value pairs.

**Library used**

The `URLSearchParams` API is a built-in JavaScript library that provides an easy way to work with search parameters. It's part of the Web API standards, so it's supported by most modern browsers.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different approaches for serializing form data.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for serializing form data, here are a few options:

* **XHR**: You can use XHR (XMLHttpRequest) to send the form data as part of an HTTP request.
* **FormData**: While `URLSearchParams` is being compared with manual serialization, `FormData` could be another option for serializing form data. It provides a similar API to `URLSearchParams`, but with additional features like file uploads and support for more complex forms.
* **JSON.stringify() with a custom replacer function**: Instead of using the built-in `JSON.stringify()` method, you can create a custom replacer function to handle specific formatting requirements or optimizations.

Keep in mind that each approach has its own trade-offs, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Serialize form to check if modified (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Url search params vs Manual

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Url search params

Manual

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):