Benchmark: zlib compatible compression libraries comparison - pako vs fflate

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://unpkg.com/fflate"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/pako/2.1.0/pako.es5.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

const 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.deflate(a)
var cb = pako.deflate(b)

Tests:

zip pako a
pako.deflate(a)
zip fflate a
fflate.zlibSync(a)
zip pako b
pako.deflate(b)
zip fflate b
fflate.zlibSync(b)
unzip pako a
pako.inflate(ca);
unzip fflate a
fflate.unzlibSync(ca);
unzip pako b
pako.inflate(cb)
unzip fflate b
fflate.unzlibSync(cb)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its results.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two JavaScript libraries: pako and fflate, which are implementations of zlib-compatible compression algorithms. The goal is to measure the performance of each library in terms of compression and decompression speeds.

**Options Being Compared**

There are four options being compared:

1. `pako.deflate(a)` vs `fflate.zlibSync(a)`: This comparison tests the compression speed of each library on a large dataset (`a`).
2. `pako.deflate(b)` vs `fflate.zlibSync(b)`: This comparison tests the compression speed of each library on another large dataset (`b`).
3. `pako.inflate(ca)` vs `fflate.unzlibSync(ca)`: This comparison tests the decompression speed of each library on a compressed dataset (`ca`).
4. `pako.inflate(cb)` vs `fflate.unzlibSync(cb)`: This comparison tests the decompression speed of each library on another compressed dataset (`cb`).

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **pako.deflate(a)**:
	* Pros: pako is a lightweight, well-maintained library with good performance.
	* Cons: may not be as efficient as fflate for very large datasets.
2. **fflate.zlibSync(a)**:
	* Pros: fflate is highly optimized for performance and has good support for modern browsers.
	* Cons: may have higher memory usage due to its larger size.
3. **pako.deflate(b)**:
	* Pros: similar to pako.deflate(a), but tests a different dataset, which may provide more representative results.
	* Cons: same limitations as pako.deflate(a).
4. **fflate.zlibSync(b)**:
	* Pros: similar to fflate.zlibSync(a), but tests a different dataset.
	* Cons: same limitations as fflate.zlibSync(a).

**Libraries**

1. **pako**: A lightweight, JavaScript implementation of the pako algorithm, which is a zlib-compatible compression algorithm. It's designed for small to medium-sized datasets.
2. **fflate**: A highly optimized, JavaScript implementation of the flate algorithm, which is also a zlib-compatible compression algorithm. It's designed for large datasets and has good support for modern browsers.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require specific knowledge to understand.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative libraries, here are a few options:

1. **zlib**: The original zlib library is written in C and has good performance, but it's not JavaScript-compatible.
2. **jszip**: A lightweight JavaScript library that provides zip compression and decompression capabilities.
3. **lz-string**: Another lightweight JavaScript library for compressing strings using the LZ-77 algorithm.

Keep in mind that each library has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of which one to use depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
zip pako a	69.2 Ops/sec
zip fflate a	59.5 Ops/sec
zip pako b	5446.8 Ops/sec
zip fflate b	12924.5 Ops/sec
unzip pako a	204.5 Ops/sec
unzip fflate a	236.3 Ops/sec
unzip pako b	45205.3 Ops/sec
unzip fflate b	8529.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

zlib compatible compression libraries comparison - pako vs fflate (version: 0)

comparing zlib compatible compression and decompression of pako with fflate

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

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

zip pako a

zip fflate a

zip pako b

zip fflate b

unzip pako a

unzip fflate a

unzip pako b

unzip fflate b

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):