Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Encode vs Blob vs length
(version: 0)
Checking size of string performance
Comparing performance of:
Blob vs TextEncoder vs length
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
iterations = 1000; function randomStringGen(n) { let strings = []; for (let i = 0; i < n; i++) { let s = Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 15) + Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 15); strings[i] = s; } return strings; } var randomStrings = randomStringGen(iterations); var encoder = new TextEncoder();
Tests:
Blob
var j = 0; for (let i = 0; i < iterations; i++) { var str = randomStrings[i % iterations]; new TextEncoder().encode(str).length }
TextEncoder
var j = 0; for (let i = 0; i < iterations; i++) { var str = randomStrings[i % iterations]; new Blob([str]).size }
length
var j = 0; for (let i = 0; i < iterations; i++) { var str = randomStrings[i % iterations]; str.length }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Blob
TextEncoder
length
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):
**Benchmark Overview** MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark tests the performance of encoding strings using three different approaches: `length`, `Blob`, and `TextEncoder`. **Tested Options** The benchmark compares the following options: 1. **Length**: This option measures the length of a string directly. 2. **Blob**: This option creates a new blob object with the string as its only data channel and then returns the size of the blob. 3. **TextEncoder**: This option encodes the string using the `TextEncoder` API and measures the resulting byte length. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons for each approach: * **Length**: + Pros: Simple, straightforward, no additional memory allocation required. + Cons: May not account for encoding differences between browsers or platforms. * **Blob**: + Pros: Mimics the behavior of modern JavaScript engines that return the size of a blob object after creating it with a string. + Cons: Requires additional memory allocation and may incur overhead due to creating a new blob object. * **TextEncoder**: + Pros: Reflects how modern browsers return the byte length of encoded strings using `TextEncoder`. + Cons: May require additional setup or configuration, as not all browsers support this API. **Library Used (TextEncoder)** `TextEncoder` is an API introduced in ECMAScript 2017 (ES7) that provides a way to encode strings into a binary format. It's designed for use with Web APIs and allows developers to control the encoding scheme used. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** This benchmark does not mention any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, Promises, or modern ES6+ features like classes, modules, or destructuring. **Alternatives** Other alternatives to measure string length performance could include: * Using a library like `utf8-js` or `string-encoding` to encode strings and then measuring the resulting byte length. * Implementing a custom encoding scheme using a loop that iterates over each character in the string. * Comparing the performance of different algorithms for encoding strings, such as base64 or zlib. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be directly comparable to the `TextEncoder` approach, and their results may depend on specific use cases and requirements.
Related benchmarks:
Encode vs Blob
Encode vs Blob on large string
Encode vs Blob v2
Encode vs Blob v2.1
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?