Benchmark: TextEncoder.encode() vs encodeURIComponent

Script Preparation code:

var str = "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet."

Tests:

TextEncoder
new TextEncoder().encode(str)
encodeURIComponent
encodeURIComponent(str)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
TextEncoder
encodeURIComponent

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark that compares the performance of two encoding functions: `TextEncoder.encode()` and `encodeURIComponent()`. The test is designed to measure the execution speed of these functions on a given input string.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1.  **`TextEncoder.encode()`**: This function is part of the Web APIs for working with binary strings, introduced in ECMAScript 2017 (ES7). It creates a text encoder that encodes a string to a new binary array.
2.  **`encodeURIComponent()`**: This function is part of the JavaScript Standard Library and takes a string as input and returns its encoded version using the URL encoding scheme.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **`TextEncoder.encode()`**
    *   Pros:
        *   More efficient and optimized for performance compared to `encodeURIComponent()`.
        *   Uses binary encoding, which can be more compact than URL-encoded strings.
    *   Cons:
        *   Not widely supported in older browsers or environments.
        *   Requires special handling for null or undefined inputs.

*   **`encodeURIComponent()`**
    *   Pros:
        *   Widely supported in older browsers and environments.
        *   Simpler to implement, as it uses a standard URL encoding scheme.
    *   Cons:
        *   Less efficient than `TextEncoder.encode()`, especially for large input strings.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided test cases explicitly use any external libraries. However, keep in mind that other libraries might be used elsewhere in your codebase to perform similar operations.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark uses JavaScript's built-in `URLSearchParams` API (not mentioned in the given code snippet) which provides a simpler way to encode URLs, but it is not related to the `TextEncoder.encode()` and `encodeURIComponent()` functions being compared here. If you want to test more complex scenarios like encoding URLs or form data using this library, that would be another story.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to compare other encoding options, consider exploring:

*   **`btoa()` (Binary to Text Encoding)**: This function encodes a binary string into a URL-encoded string.
*   **`new Blob()`**: Creates a new blob object from an array of bytes, which can be used as an alternative to `TextEncoder`.
*   **`JSON.stringify()` or `String.fromCharCode()`:** For encoding and decoding strings using a JSON-like syntax.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics compared to the functions being benchmarked.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
TextEncoder	273339.9 Ops/sec
encodeURIComponent	309573.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

TextEncoder.encode() vs encodeURIComponent (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: TextEncoder vs encodeURIComponent

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

TextEncoder

encodeURIComponent

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):