Benchmark: URL vs String - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

const test1 = () => {
    const baseUrl = "https://www.measurethat.net";
    const params = {
        id: 4,
        benchmark: 5832
    };

    const queryString = Object.entries(params)
        .map(([key, value]) => `${key}=${value}`)
        .join("&");

    const fullUrl = new URL(`${baseUrl}?${queryString}`)
}
const test2 = ()=>{
    const url = new URL("https://www.measurethat.net");
    const params = { id: 4, benchmark: 5832 };

    for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(params)) {
      url.searchParams.append(key, value);
}
}

Tests:

URL String
test1()
URL SearchParams
test2()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
URL String
URL SearchParams

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
URL String	1846184.9 Ops/sec
URL SearchParams	621459.6 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 5 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark defined in the provided JSON focuses on comparing two different methods of constructing a URL with query parameters in JavaScript. This evaluation will assess their performance in terms of execution speed.

### Options Being Compared

1. **URL String Construction (test1)**:
   - **Implementation**: This method creates a query string by manually building it from an object containing parameters. The parameters are obtained using `Object.entries()`, which converts the object into an array of key-value pairs. These pairs are then formatted into a query string using template literals and joined with an ampersand (`&`) to form complete URL string representation.
   - **Code Snippet**:
     ```javascript
     const queryString = Object.entries(params)
         .map(([key, value]) => `${key}=${value}`)
         .join("&");
     const fullUrl = new URL(`${baseUrl}?${queryString}`);
     ```

2. **URL SearchParams (test2)**:
   - **Implementation**: This method leverages the `URL` constructor along with the `URLSearchParams` interface to achieve the same outcome. It initializes a URL object and directly appends query parameters using the `searchParams.append()` method, which is specifically designed for handling search parameters cleanly and efficiently.
   - **Code Snippet**:
     ```javascript
     for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(params)) {
         url.searchParams.append(key, value);
     }
     ```

### Pros and Cons

#### URL String Construction (test1)
- **Pros**:
  - Simplicity and straightforwardness: It relies on basic JavaScript syntax that most developers will be familiar with.
  - Flexibility: It allows for custom formatting of the query string, should that be necessary.

- **Cons**:
  - Potential for human error: The manual construction of the string might result in mistakes, such as incorrect encoding or formatting of parameters.
  - Increased complexity for edge cases: Handling special characters or multiple values for a single parameter requires extra code for proper encoding.

#### URL SearchParams (test2)
- **Pros**:
  - Built-in handling of URL encoding: The `searchParams.append()` method automatically handles encoding of parameter keys and values, reducing the risk of errors.
  - Cleaner code: Interactions with URL parameters are handled in a more intuitive way, making the code easier to read and maintain.

- **Cons**:
  - Slightly more overhead initially due to the instantiation of the URL object which might not be necessary if just a string is needed.
  - Requires understanding of the `URL` and `URLSearchParams` interfaces, which might not be as familiar to every developer.

### Benchmark Results

- **URL String Method (test1)**:
  - **Executions Per Second**: 469,373.97
- **URL SearchParams Method (test2)**:
  - **Executions Per Second**: 208,007.80

From the benchmark results, the URL String method (`test1`) performed significantly better, executing almost 2.25 times more operations per second compared to the URL SearchParams method (`test2`). This suggests that for scenarios where performance is critical and the number of parameters is modest, manually constructing the query string may be worthwhile.

### Other Considerations

1. **Browser Compatibility**: Both methods are supported in modern browsers. However, older browsers that do not support the `URL` interface may necessitate a fallback to string construction.

2. **Alternative Methods**: Aside from the two methods tested, developers might consider libraries like:
   - **qs**: A popular query string parsing and stringifying library that offers more functionality such as deep object query strings.
   - **query-string**: A lightweight library for parsing and stringifying URLs, which can simplify the process compared to manual methods.

3. **Use Cases**: Choice between these methods may vary based on specific use cases. For small, simple applications where performance is a priority, string construction might be favored. For larger applications that prioritize maintainability, the URL SearchParams approach is more appealing.

In conclusion, the choice between URL string construction and URL search parameters involves trade-offs between performance, ease of use, and error management. Considerations around the target environment and specific application needs will ultimately guide the right choice.

Related benchmarks:

URL vs String (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: URL String vs URL SearchParams

Created: 5 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

URL String

URL SearchParams

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 5 months ago):