Benchmark: Encode vs Blob vs length

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>

Previous results

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**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 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

Blob

TextEncoder

length

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):