Benchmark: Md5 hashing - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/spark-md5/3.0.2/spark-md5.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/crypto-js/4.1.1/crypto-js.min.js"></script>

Tests:

Spark
SparkMD5.hash('Hi there');
CryptoJS
CryptoJS.MD5('Hi there');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Spark
CryptoJS

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 18 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Spark	763095.9 Ops/sec
CryptoJS	309100.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the details of this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is testing the performance of two different JavaScript libraries for calculating MD5 hashes: SparkMD5 and CryptoJS.

**What are the options being compared?**

Two options are being compared:

1. **SparkMD5**: This library uses a streaming approach to calculate MD5 hashes, which means it processes the input data in small chunks rather than loading the entire input into memory at once.
2. **CryptoJS**: This library uses a more traditional approach to calculating MD5 hashes, where the entire input is loaded into memory and then processed.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

* **SparkMD5 (Streaming)**:
	+ Pros: More memory-efficient, as it processes data in small chunks.
	+ Cons: May be slower than CryptoJS for large inputs, since it has to do more work per chunk.
* **CryptoJS (Traditional)**:
	+ Pros: Generally faster for large inputs, since it can process the entire input at once.
	+ Cons: More memory-intensive, as it needs to load the entire input into memory.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark is running on a modern Chrome browser (version 129), which means we should consider how the performance might change on other browsers or platforms.
* The input data being hashed is simply the string "Hi there", which may not be representative of real-world use cases. In practice, inputs can vary widely in size and complexity.

**What are the alternatives?**

Other libraries and approaches for calculating MD5 hashes include:

* **Web Crypto API**: This is a modern, built-in API in browsers that provides an efficient way to calculate cryptographic hashes.
* **Node.js's crypto module**: This is a built-in module in Node.js that provides an efficient way to calculate cryptographic hashes.

**Other observations:**

* The SparkMD5 implementation appears to be more than 2x faster than CryptoJS for this particular input, which suggests that the streaming approach can have significant performance benefits.
* The results are consistent across multiple executions ( ExecutionsPerSecond is similar in both cases), indicating that the performance difference is likely due to the inherent properties of the algorithms rather than any external factors.

Overall, this benchmark provides a useful comparison between two different JavaScript libraries for calculating MD5 hashes. It highlights the importance of considering memory efficiency and streaming approaches when designing high-performance code.

Related benchmarks:

Md5 hashing (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Spark vs CryptoJS

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Spark

CryptoJS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 2 months ago):