Benchmark: aaa params str to obj

Script Preparation code:

var pstr = "foo=bar&param1=123456&param2=hello%20world"

Tests:

manual param obj
var pobj = pstr .split('&') .map((param) => param.split('=')) .reduce((acc, [key, value]) => { acc[key] = value return acc }, {})
URLSearchParams
var pobj = new URLSearchParams(pstr)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
manual param obj
URLSearchParams

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is tested, the different approaches compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents two test cases:

1. **Manual Param Obj**: This test case measures the performance of creating a JavaScript object from a string of key-value pairs manually.
2. **URLSearchParams**: This test case measures the performance of using the `URLSearchParams` API to create a JavaScript object from a string of key-value pairs.

**Script Preparation Code**

For both test cases, the script preparation code is the same:
```javascript
var pstr = "foo=bar&param1=123456&param2=hello%20world";
```
This code defines a string `pstr` containing key-value pairs separated by ampersands (`&`).

**Html Preparation Code**

Both test cases have an empty HTML preparation code, which is not used in this benchmark.

**Test Cases**

Now, let's examine each test case:

### Manual Param Obj

The benchmark definition for this test case is:
```javascript
var pobj = pstr
  .split('&')
  .map((param) => param.split('='))
  .reduce((acc, [key, value]) => {
    acc[key] = value;
    return acc;
  }, {});
```
This code manually splits the input string into key-value pairs using `&` as a delimiter. Each pair is then split further into two parts (key and value) using the `=` character as a delimiter. Finally, an object is created using the `reduce()` method to store the key-value pairs.

Pros:

* No dependencies on external libraries or APIs.
* Simple and straightforward code.

Cons:

* Manual parsing of input string can be error-prone and time-consuming.
* Performance may suffer due to unnecessary string splitting and concatenation.

### URLSearchParams

The benchmark definition for this test case is:
```javascript
var pobj = new URLSearchParams(pstr);
```
This code uses the `URLSearchParams` API to create a JavaScript object from the input string. The `new` keyword creates an instance of the `URLSearchParams` class, which automatically parses the input string into key-value pairs.

Pros:

* Convenient and efficient way to parse key-value pairs.
* No manual parsing required, reducing error-prone code.
* Can handle complex formats with multiple delimiters or escape sequences.

Cons:

* May be slower due to overhead of creating an instance of `URLSearchParams`.
* Less control over parsing process compared to manual approach.

**Library**

The `URLSearchParams` library is a built-in JavaScript API introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). Its purpose is to provide a convenient way to parse and manipulate URL query strings, making it easier to work with web APIs and client-side data storage.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between the manual and `URLSearchParams` approaches, consider the following:

* Performance: If speed is critical, the manual approach might be faster due to reduced overhead. However, if convenience and ease of use are prioritized, `URLSearchParams` can provide better performance.
* Code complexity: The manual approach requires more code and manual parsing, while `URLSearchParams` simplifies this process.
* Error handling: Manual parsing can lead to errors if the input string is malformed or contains invalid characters. `URLSearchParams` provides built-in error handling and support for complex formats.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for parsing key-value pairs in JavaScript include:

* `JSON.parse()`: Can be used to parse JSON-formatted data, but may not work well with non-JSON data.
* `eval()`: Can be used to execute arbitrary code, but is generally discouraged due to security concerns.
* Custom parsing libraries or functions: May offer more control and flexibility than built-in APIs, but often require additional development effort.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different trade-offs in terms of performance, complexity, and error handling.

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/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
manual param obj	7007204.0 Ops/sec
URLSearchParams	1071670.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

aaa params str to obj (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: manual param obj vs URLSearchParams

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

manual param obj

URLSearchParams

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):