Benchmark: URL Clone vs Copy Search Params

Script Preparation code:

var param = "?id=4&benchmark=5832";
var url_1 = "http://localhost:3000" + param;
var url_2 = 'https://localhost:3001';
var new_protocol = 'https:';
var url = new URL(url_1);
var loop = 10000;

Tests:

Clone and copy
const second_url = new URL(url_2); url.host = second_url.host; url.protocol = second_url.protocol;
Concat pathName
const params = url.searchParams.toString(); const clone = new URL(url.pathname + (params.length > 0 ? '?' + params : ''), url_2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Clone and copy
Concat pathName

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Clone and copy	534727.2 Ops/sec
Concat pathName	988680.9 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark you provided is focused on comparing two different approaches to manipulate URL objects in JavaScript: cloning a URL and copying its search parameters. Here’s a breakdown of the two tested methods and their pros and cons.

### Benchmark Overview

- **Name**: URL Clone vs Copy Search Params
- **Preparation**: 
  - A parameter string `"?id=4&benchmark=5832"` is defined.
  - Two URLs are created, one for `http://localhost:3000` and another for `https://localhost:3001`.
  - A `URL` object is created from the first URL, and a loop is set to run 10,000 times for benchmarking.

### Test Cases

1. **Clone and Copy**
   - **Benchmark Definition**:
     ```javascript
     const second_url = new URL(url_2);
     url.host = second_url.host;
     url.protocol = second_url.protocol;
     ```
   - **What it does**: This method creates a new `URL` object from `url_2` to get its `host` and `protocol`. It then directly assigns these properties to the original `URL` object created from `url_1`.
   - **Pros**:
     - Simple and straightforward method for changing parts of the URL.
     - Directly manipulates existing properties, which can be clearer to read and maintain.
   - **Cons**:
     - This method does not take into account any query parameters; if search parameters need to be copied, an additional step is required.

2. **Concat pathName**
   - **Benchmark Definition**:
     ```javascript
     const params = url.searchParams.toString();
     const clone = new URL(url.pathname + (params.length > 0 ? '?' + params : ''), url_2);
     ```
   - **What it does**: This method first retrieves the search parameters from the original `URL` object (`url`) and combines them with the pathname to create a new `URL` based on `url_2`.
   - **Pros**:
     - Efficient for creating a new URL that retains the original pathname and its search parameters.
     - This keeps the integrity of the original URL while creating a new one.
   - **Cons**:
     - Slightly more complex, as it includes the need to check and potentially append search parameters, which may introduce overhead.

### Benchmark Results

- The results show that the "Concat pathName" test executed at approximately **988,680.94 executions per second**, while the "Clone and copy" test executed at about **534,727.19 executions per second**. This indicates that the "Concat pathName" method is significantly faster under the conditions tested.

### Other Considerations

- **Performance**: When manipulating URL objects, the performance can vary depending on method complexity and underlying JavaScript engine optimizations. The benchmark showcases that constructing a new URL while maintaining search params can be more efficient than altering the existing URL object.

- **Alternatives**: Other alternatives could include:
  - **Using URLSearchParams**: If manipulating query parameters specifically, the `URLSearchParams` interface can be more efficient for operations involving searches.
  - **Building URLs Manually**: For very specific use cases, manually constructing URLs as strings (if user input is minimal or controlled) might provide better performance in some cases.
  
In summary, this benchmark illustrates how different approaches to URL manipulation can affect both performance and clarity of code. Understanding the context in which the URLs are used will help choose the appropriate method based on specific application needs.

Related benchmarks:

URL Clone vs Copy Search Params (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Clone and copy vs Concat pathName

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Clone and copy

Concat pathName

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):