Benchmark: Encode vs Blobie

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();

AخA
 
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:

TextEncoder

var j = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < iterations; i++) {
    var str = randomStrings[i % iterations];
 encoder.encode(str).length
}

 
var j = 0;for (let i = 0; i < iterations; i++) {    var str = randomStrings[i % iterations]; encoder.encode(str).length}

Blob

var j = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < iterations; i++) {
  var str = randomStrings[i % iterations];
  new Blob([str]).size
}

 
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

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
TextEncoder
Blob

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/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.6 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 16 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
TextEncoder	3283.6 Ops/sec
Blob	29.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

What is being tested?

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches for encoding strings: TextEncoder and creating a Blob object from a string.

Options compared:

Two options are compared:

TextEncoder: This is a built-in JavaScript API for encoding strings. It provides an efficient way to encode strings into various formats, such as UTF-8.
Blob: This creates a new blob (a binary file-like object) from the encoded string.

Pros and Cons of each approach:

TextEncoder:
- Pros:
  - Faster execution time due to its optimized encoding algorithm
  - More memory-efficient as it only encodes the actual data, without unnecessary padding or headers
  - Can be used for a variety of encoding formats, including UTF-8
- Cons:
  - Requires JavaScript engine support (most modern browsers have built-in support)
  - May not work in older browsers or environments without TextEncoder
Blob:
- Pros:
  - Works across all browsers and environments with no additional setup required
  - Can be used for encoding binary data as well, not just text
- Cons:
  - Slower execution time due to the overhead of creating a new blob object
  - May require more memory to store the encoded string

Library usage:

In this benchmark, no external libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, the TextEncoder API is built into modern JavaScript engines and is not considered a third-party library.

Special JS feature or syntax:

The benchmark uses the for...of loop (in the Html Preparation Code) to generate an array of random strings, which is a relatively recent feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. This loop provides a concise way to iterate over arrays and is commonly used in modern JavaScript development.

Other alternatives:

If you need to compare encoding approaches with other options, some alternative methods could be:

Using the Buffer API (a more low-level, binary-based approach)
Utilizing WebAssembly (WASM) for optimized performance
Employing a third-party library like js-base64 or base64-js for encoding and decoding strings

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different pros and cons compared to the TextEncoder and Blob approaches.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches for encoding strings: `TextEncoder` and creating a `Blob` object from a string.

**Options compared:**

Two options are compared:

1. **TextEncoder**: This is a built-in JavaScript API for encoding strings. It provides an efficient way to encode strings into various formats, such as UTF-8.
2. **Blob**: This creates a new blob (a binary file-like object) from the encoded string.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **TextEncoder**:
	+ Pros:
		- Faster execution time due to its optimized encoding algorithm
		- More memory-efficient as it only encodes the actual data, without unnecessary padding or headers
		- Can be used for a variety of encoding formats, including UTF-8
	+ Cons:
		- Requires JavaScript engine support (most modern browsers have built-in support)
		- May not work in older browsers or environments without `TextEncoder`
* **Blob**:
	+ Pros:
		- Works across all browsers and environments with no additional setup required
		- Can be used for encoding binary data as well, not just text
	+ Cons:
		- Slower execution time due to the overhead of creating a new blob object
		- May require more memory to store the encoded string

**Library usage:**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, the `TextEncoder` API is built into modern JavaScript engines and is not considered a third-party library.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

The benchmark uses the `for...of` loop (in the `Html Preparation Code`) to generate an array of random strings, which is a relatively recent feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. This loop provides a concise way to iterate over arrays and is commonly used in modern JavaScript development.

**Other alternatives:**

If you need to compare encoding approaches with other options, some alternative methods could be:

* Using the `Buffer` API (a more low-level, binary-based approach)
* Utilizing WebAssembly (WASM) for optimized performance
* Employing a third-party library like `js-base64` or `base64-js` for encoding and decoding strings

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different pros and cons compared to the `TextEncoder` and `Blob` approaches.

Related benchmarks:

Encode vs Blobie (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: TextEncoder vs Blob

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result