Benchmark: lz-string vs lz-utf8

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lz-string/1.5.0/lz-string.min.js"></script>
<script id="lzutf8" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lzutf8/build/production/lzutf8.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var string = `[{"position":[0.4053397288042788,0.9161322508717471],"alias":"player11"}, {"position":[0.032885732668610945,0.5217127089309777],"alias":"player11"}, {"position":[0.046501222070234105,0.4416303631871801],"alias":"player11"}, {"position":[0.501956817885332,0.26260992265552496],"alias":"player11"}, {"position":[0.3972093640290386,0.2237804084367898],"alias":"player11"}, {"position":[0.4171841396793452,0.7250318425335418],"alias":"player11"}, {"position":[0.10370657307033793,0.8338842943449913],"alias":"player11"}, {"position":[0.760216361566781,0.4391116386058227],"alias":"player11"}, {"position":[0.31942962258914376,0.3931480967639178],"alias":"player11"}]`;

var lzStringCompressed = LZString.compressToUTF16(string);
var lzUtf8Compressed = LZUTF8.compress(string);

Tests:

compress lz-string
LZString.compressToUTF16(string);
compress lz-utf8
LZUTF8.compress(string);
decompress lz-string
LZString.decompressFromUTF16(lzStringCompressed);
decompress lz-utf8
LZUTF8.decompress(lzUtf8Compressed);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
compress lz-string
compress lz-utf8
decompress lz-string
decompress lz-utf8

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down what's being tested in the provided benchmark and explain the options, pros, cons, libraries used, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test case is comparing two JavaScript libraries for file compression/decompression: `LZString` and `LZUTF8`. The tests are designed to measure the performance of each library on a specific string input.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **LZString.compressToUTF16(string)**: Compresses the input string using LZString's `compressToUTF16` method.
2. **LZUTF8.compress(string)**: Compresses the input string using LZUTF8's `compress` method.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **LZString.compressToUTF16(string)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Simple to implement
		- Fast compression and decompression times (due to using UTF-16 encoding)
	+ Cons:
		- May not be as efficient for large datasets due to the overhead of UTF-16 encoding
		- May not support all types of data (e.g., binary data)
* **LZUTF8.compress(string)**:
	+ Pros:
		- More efficient for large datasets (uses a more compact encoding scheme)
		- Supports more types of data (e.g., binary data)
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower than LZString for small datasets
		- Requires additional code to handle UTF-8 decoding

**Libraries Used**

The test case uses the following libraries:

* **LZString**: A JavaScript library for compression and decompression. It's a widely used library, but it has some limitations (e.g., it only supports UTF-16 encoding).
* **LZUTF8**: A JavaScript library for compression and decompression. It's designed to be more efficient than LZString, especially for large datasets.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's required for the libraries being tested. However, it's worth noting that the `compressToUTF16` method in LZString uses UTF-16 encoding, which is a specific character encoding scheme.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between LZString and LZUTF8, consider the following factors:

* **Compression Ratio**: If you need to compress large datasets, LZUTF8 might be a better choice due to its more compact encoding scheme.
* **Decompression Speed**: If decompression speed is critical, LZString might be a better choice due to its faster decompression times for small datasets.
* **Data Type Support**: If you need to support binary data or other types of data that aren't supported by LZUTF8, LZString might be a better choice.

**Alternatives**

If you're not happy with the performance of LZString and LZUTF8, consider using alternative compression libraries such as:

* **zlib.js**: A JavaScript port of the popular zlib library.
* **lz-compress**: A lightweight JavaScript library for compression and decompression.
* **brotli-js**: A JavaScript library for compression and decompression that supports a wide range of features, including content encoding.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its own strengths and weaknesses, and you should carefully evaluate their performance and features before making a decision.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
compress lz-string	18649.6 Ops/sec
compress lz-utf8	5954.3 Ops/sec
decompress lz-string	37000.8 Ops/sec
decompress lz-utf8	337667.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lz-string vs lz-utf8 (version: 0)

emulate file compression/decompression

Comparing performance of: compress lz-string vs compress lz-utf8 vs decompress lz-string vs decompress lz-utf8

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

compress lz-string

compress lz-utf8

decompress lz-string

decompress lz-utf8

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):