Benchmark: Encode vs Blobie

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:

TextEncoder
var j = 0; for (let i = 0; i < iterations; i++) { var str = randomStrings[i % iterations]; encoder.encode(str).length }
Blob
var j = 0; for (let i = 0; i < iterations; i++) { var str = randomStrings[i % iterations]; new Blob([str]).size }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
TextEncoder
Blob

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/138.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 138 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
TextEncoder	572.3 Ops/sec
Blob	1.7 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches for encoding strings: `TextEncoder` and creating a `Blob` object from a string.

**Options compared:**

Two options are compared:

1. **TextEncoder**: This is a built-in JavaScript API for encoding strings. It provides an efficient way to encode strings into various formats, such as UTF-8.
2. **Blob**: This creates a new blob (a binary file-like object) from the encoded string.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **TextEncoder**:
	+ Pros:
		- Faster execution time due to its optimized encoding algorithm
		- More memory-efficient as it only encodes the actual data, without unnecessary padding or headers
		- Can be used for a variety of encoding formats, including UTF-8
	+ Cons:
		- Requires JavaScript engine support (most modern browsers have built-in support)
		- May not work in older browsers or environments without `TextEncoder`
* **Blob**:
	+ Pros:
		- Works across all browsers and environments with no additional setup required
		- Can be used for encoding binary data as well, not just text
	+ Cons:
		- Slower execution time due to the overhead of creating a new blob object
		- May require more memory to store the encoded string

**Library usage:**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, the `TextEncoder` API is built into modern JavaScript engines and is not considered a third-party library.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

The benchmark uses the `for...of` loop (in the `Html Preparation Code`) to generate an array of random strings, which is a relatively recent feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. This loop provides a concise way to iterate over arrays and is commonly used in modern JavaScript development.

**Other alternatives:**

If you need to compare encoding approaches with other options, some alternative methods could be:

* Using the `Buffer` API (a more low-level, binary-based approach)
* Utilizing WebAssembly (WASM) for optimized performance
* Employing a third-party library like `js-base64` or `base64-js` for encoding and decoding strings

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different pros and cons compared to the `TextEncoder` and `Blob` approaches.

Related benchmarks:

Encode vs Blobie (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: TextEncoder vs Blob

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

TextEncoder

Blob

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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