Benchmark: encodeURIComponent performance

Tests:

without encodeURIComponent
console.log('@'.repeat(2000))
encodeURIComponent
console.log(encodeURIComponent('@').repeat(2000))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
without encodeURIComponent
encodeURIComponent

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
without encodeURIComponent	209925.3 Ops/sec
encodeURIComponent	83881.9 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.

**Benchmark Definition JSON:**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, which is a small piece of code designed to measure the performance of specific JavaScript features or operations.

In this case, the "Benchmark Definition" specifies two different scripts that will be executed:

1. `console.log('@'.repeat(2000))`: This script simply logs a string containing 2000 repeating '@' characters to the console.
2. `console.log(encodeURIComponent('@').repeat(2000))`: This script uses the `encodeURIComponent` function to encode the string '@' and then repeats it 2000 times, logging the result to the console.

The "Script Preparation Code" and "Html Preparation Code" fields are empty, indicating that no setup code is required before running the benchmark.

**Test Cases:**

There are two test cases:

1. **without encodeURIComponent**: This script executes the first benchmark definition (`console.log('@'.repeat(2000))`) without applying `encodeURIComponent` to the string.
2. **encodeURIComponent**: This script executes the second benchmark definition (`console.log(encodeURIComponent('@').repeat(2000))`) with `encodeURIComponent` applied to the string.

**Options Compared:**

The two test cases compare the performance of the `encodeURIComponent` function when used with a simple string (`@`). The main options being compared are:

* **No encoding**: The first script does not apply any encoding to the string.
* **Encoded string**: The second script applies `encodeURIComponent` to the string, which may introduce additional overhead or changes to the string's behavior.

**Pros and Cons:**

**No encoding (without encodeURIComponent):**

Pros:

* No potential performance impact from encoding
* Simple and straightforward code execution

Cons:

* May not accurately reflect real-world scenarios where strings need encoding
* Does not account for any differences in string handling between browsers or environments

**Encoded string (encodeURIComponent):**

Pros:

* More realistic representation of how encoding is used in practice
* Can help identify performance regressions that occur when encoding is necessary

Cons:

* May introduce additional overhead due to the encoding process
* Can affect the behavior of the string, such as changes to its length or Unicode properties.

**Library:**

None of the provided benchmark definitions explicitly use any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that `encodeURIComponent` is a built-in JavaScript function that is part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**

The provided benchmark definitions do not include any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation. The focus is on comparing the performance of simple encoding operations.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you want to create similar benchmarks, consider exploring other options:

* Use a different encoding function, such as `encodeURI` or `btoa`.
* Compare the performance of different string manipulation techniques, like concatenation vs. array methods.
* Investigate browser-specific optimizations or quirks that affect string handling.
* Create a benchmark that tests the performance of real-world encoding scenarios, such as handling non-ASCII characters or Unicode ranges.

Related benchmarks:

encodeURIComponent performance (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: without encodeURIComponent vs encodeURIComponent

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

without encodeURIComponent

encodeURIComponent

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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