Benchmark: compression libraries 2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://unpkg.com/fflate"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/pako/2.0.3/pako.es5.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var enc = new TextEncoder();
var a = new Uint8Array([...Array(1000000).keys()]);
var b = enc.encode('The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog')
var ca = pako.gzip(a)
var cb = pako.gzip(b)
console.log(cb)

Tests:

unzip pako a
pako.inflate(ca)
unzip pako b
pako.inflate(cb)
zip pako a
pako.deflate(a)
zip pako b
pako.deflate(b)
unzip fflate a
fflate.decompressSync(ca);
unzip fflate b
fflate.decompressSync(cb);
zip fflate a
fflate.gzipSync(a)
zip fflate b
fflate.gzipSync(b)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
unzip pako a
unzip pako b
zip pako a
zip pako b
unzip fflate a
unzip fflate b
zip fflate a
zip fflate b

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided JSON represents a benchmarking test suite for comparing the performance of two compression libraries: pako and fflate. The test suite consists of eight individual test cases, each measuring the execution time of various operations on input data.

**Compression Operations**

1. **Zip**: `pako.deflate(a)` and `fflate.gzipSync(a)`. These operations compress the input data (`a`) using the pako and fflate algorithms, respectively.
2. **Unzip**: `pako.inflate(ca)` and `fflate.decompressSync(ca)`, where `ca` is the compressed output of the corresponding zip operation above. These operations decompress the previously compressed data using the pako and fflate algorithms.

**Library Overview**

1. **Pako**: The pako library provides a simple, efficient way to compress and decompress data using the DEFLATE algorithm. It's primarily used for zipping and unzipping files.
2. **Fflate**: Fflate is a high-performance compression library based on the DEFLATE algorithm. It's designed to be fast and efficient while maintaining good compression ratios.

**Options Compared**

In each test case, two options are compared:

1. **Pako vs. Fflate**: Each test compares the performance of pako with that of fflate for both zip and unzip operations.
2. **Zip vs. Unzip**: Within each library (pako or fflate), a test compares the execution time of zipping data versus unzipping previously compressed data.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **Pako Pros:**
    *   Simpler to use, with fewer dependencies.
    *   Typically more performant than fflate for small to medium-sized inputs.
*   **Pako Cons:**
    *   May not provide the best compression ratios compared to fflate.
    *   Can be slower for very large inputs.
*   **Fflate Pros:**
    *   Provides better compression ratios and faster performance for larger inputs.
    *   More flexible than pako, with more options for tuning compression settings.

**Other Considerations**

1.  **Input Data**: The benchmark tests the performance of each library on a specific input dataset (a large array of numbers) that is sufficient to reveal differences in performance between pako and fflate.
2.  **Compression Algorithm**: Both libraries use the DEFLATE algorithm, which provides a good balance between compression ratio and speed.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative compression libraries, consider:

1.  **Zlib**: A widely used, open-source library that provides a simple way to compress data using the DEFLATE algorithm.
2.  **lz-string**: Another lightweight JavaScript library that provides fast compression and decompression algorithms.
3.  **Brotli**: An open-source compression format developed by Google, which is designed for web use cases.

In conclusion, this benchmark test suite helps compare the performance of two popular JavaScript compression libraries: pako and fflate. By understanding the pros and cons of each library, developers can choose the best tool for their specific needs, whether it's simplicity, performance, or compression ratios.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/103.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 103 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
unzip pako a	223.9 Ops/sec
unzip pako b	63602.7 Ops/sec
zip pako a	83.5 Ops/sec
zip pako b	8841.6 Ops/sec
unzip fflate a	567.7 Ops/sec
unzip fflate b	1176828.9 Ops/sec
zip fflate a	65.7 Ops/sec
zip fflate b	19709.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

compression libraries 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: unzip pako a vs unzip pako b vs zip pako a vs zip pako b vs unzip fflate a vs unzip fflate b vs zip fflate a vs zip fflate b

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

unzip pako a

unzip pako b

zip pako a

zip pako b

unzip fflate a

unzip fflate b

zip fflate a

zip fflate b

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):