Benchmark: Encode vs Blob - MeasureThat.net

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 }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Blob
TextEncoder

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 13 hours ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.3.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 18 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Blob	2079.9 Ops/sec
TextEncoder	8.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and its options for you.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches to encoding strings: `Blob` and `TextEncoder`. The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between these two methods.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code generates an array of random strings (`randomStrings`) using a custom function (`randomStringGen`). This function uses the `Math.random()` method to generate a string of length 15, which is then repeated to create the desired number of random strings.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided in this benchmark definition. This means that the benchmark only runs on the client-side and does not involve any server-side rendering or data fetching.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Blob**: This test case measures the performance of encoding a string using the `Blob` constructor.
2. **TextEncoder**: This test case measures the performance of encoding a string using the `TextEncoder` API.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options for encoding strings:

* **Blob**: This method creates a new blob object containing the encoded string.
* **TextEncoder**: This method uses the `TextEncoder` API to encode the string directly.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Blob**:
	+ Pros: Can be used in situations where the encoded data needs to be streamed or chunked.
	+ Cons: May incur additional overhead due to the creation of a new blob object, which can lead to performance issues.
* **TextEncoder**:
	+ Pros: Provides a lightweight and efficient way to encode strings, with low overhead and fast execution times.
	+ Cons: May not be suitable for situations where the encoded data needs to be streamed or chunked.

**Library**

The `Blob` constructor is a built-in JavaScript API that creates a new blob object. The purpose of this library is to provide a way to work with binary data in a browser environment.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of two encoding methods using standard JavaScript APIs.

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives for encoding strings include:

* **Uint8Array**: This is a typed array that can be used to represent binary data.
* **ArrayBuffer**: This is an abstract representation of a binary data buffer, which can be converted to a `Uint8Array` or another type of byte array.

Note that these alternatives may offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, memory usage, and compatibility with different browsers or environments.

Related benchmarks:

Encode vs Blob (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Blob vs TextEncoder

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Blob

TextEncoder

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):