Benchmark: URL query decoding

Script Preparation code:

var urlQueryToObj1 = (url) => {
    const idx = url.indexOf("?");
    if (idx < 0)
        return {};
    const query = url.slice(idx + 1);
    return query.split("&").reduce((obj, str) => {
        const idx = str.indexOf("=");
        const key = idx < 0 ? str : str.slice(0, idx);
        const val = idx < 0 ? true : decodeURIComponent(str.slice(idx + 1));
        obj[key] = val;
        return obj;
    }, {});
}
var urlQueryToObj2 = (url) => {
    const idx = url.indexOf("?");
    if (idx < 0)
        return {};
    const query = url.slice(idx + 1);
    let output = {};
    query.split("&").forEach((str) => {
        const idx = str.indexOf("=");
        const key = idx < 0 ? str : str.slice(0, idx);
        const val = idx < 0 ? true : decodeURIComponent(str.slice(idx + 1));
        output[key] = val;
    });
    return output;
}
var url = "https://example.com/path/to/page?name=ferret&color=purple";

Tests:

urlQueryToObj1
const val = urlQueryToObj1(url);
urlQueryToObj2
const val = urlQueryToObj1(url);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
urlQueryToObj1
urlQueryToObj2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmarking results.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that measures how quickly two different functions, `urlQueryToObj1` and `urlQueryToObj2`, can decode URL query parameters.

**Options Compared**

The two functions being compared are:

1. `var urlQueryToObj1 = (url) => { ... }`
2. `var urlQueryToObj2 = (url) => { ... }`

Both functions aim to parse the URL and extract the query parameters, but they use different approaches.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **`urlQueryToObj1`**:
	* Uses a more concise and expressive syntax.
	* Utilizes the `reduce()` method to iterate over the query strings, which can be more efficient for large inputs.
	* However, it might have higher overhead due to the function invocation and method calls.
2. **`urlQueryToObj2`**:
	* Uses a more traditional and verbose approach with loops and conditional statements.
	* Might be easier to understand and maintain for developers familiar with these constructs.
	* Could potentially be slower due to the additional iterations and method calls.

**Library Used**

Neither of the functions uses any external libraries. The `decodeURIComponent()` function is built into JavaScript, so it's a standard part of the language.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard `reduce()` method.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmarking results show that:

* Both functions are quite fast, with execution counts per second in the thousands.
* The difference between the two functions is relatively small, indicating that the choice of implementation may not have a significant impact on performance for this specific use case.
* The benchmarking results could be affected by various factors, such as the JavaScript engine used, hardware configuration, and other system resources.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches or libraries to parse URL query parameters, consider:

1. Using a dedicated library like `querystring` (Node.js) or `URLSearchParams` (modern browsers).
2. Implementing a custom parser using a different approach, such as parsing the query string manually without using `reduce()` or other built-in methods.
3. Using a just-in-time (JIT) compiler or a native module to optimize performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have their own trade-offs and might not be suitable for all use cases.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:107.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/107.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 107 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
urlQueryToObj1	2857107.0 Ops/sec
urlQueryToObj2	2851207.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

URL query decoding (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: urlQueryToObj1 vs urlQueryToObj2

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

urlQueryToObj1

urlQueryToObj2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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