Benchmark: pako vs. fflate - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/fflate@0.8.0/umd/index.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/pako/2.1.0/pako.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var enc = new TextEncoder();
var a = new Uint8Array([100 * 1024]);
for (var i; i < 100 * 1024; i++)
    a[i] = Math.floor(Math.random() * 256)
var b = enc.encode('The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog '.repeat(50))
var ca = pako.gzip(a)
var cb = pako.gzip(b)
console.log(cb)

Tests:

zip pako a
pako.deflate(a)
zip pako b
pako.deflate(b)
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
zip pako a
zip pako 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.

Measuring JavaScript performance is essential for optimizing and comparing the efficiency of different libraries.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that compares two file compression libraries: pako and fflate. Let's break down what's being tested:

**Script Preparation Code**

This code creates a Uint8Array `a` with 100,000 random values between 0 and 255. It also generates a string `'The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog '.repeat(50)` using `TextEncoder`. This string is then encoded into a Uint8Array `b`.

**Html Preparation Code**

This code includes external scripts from CDN repositories:

* `fflate@0.8.0` (the library being tested for compression)
* `pako/2.1.0/pako.min.js` (the library being tested for compression)

**Benchmark Definitions**

There are four individual test cases, each using a different method to compress the data:

1. `pako.deflate(a)` - Using pako's deflate algorithm on the Uint8Array `a`.
2. `pako.deflate(b)` - Using pako's deflate algorithm on the encoded string `b` ( converted to Uint8Array).
3. `fflate.gzipSync(a)` - Using fflate's gzip algorithm on the Uint8Array `a`.
4. `fflate.gzipSync(b)` - Using fflate's gzip algorithm on the encoded string `b` (converted to Uint8Array).

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

* **pako.deflate**: Pros:
	+ pako is a smaller library (~25KB) compared to fflate (~50KB).
	+ It might be faster due to its smaller size.
*   Cons:
    *   pako is not as widely supported as fflate, and its API might be less intuitive.
    *   The compression ratio might not be as good as fflate's.

* **fflate.gzipSync**: Pros:
    *   Fflate is a well-established library with a strong focus on performance and compatibility.
    *   It provides a robust and reliable compression algorithm.
*   Cons:
    *   Fflate is larger than pako (~50KB), which might affect page load times.
    *   The compression ratio might be better than pako's, but at the cost of increased processing time.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between pako and fflate for file compression, consider the following factors:

* **Performance**: If speed is critical, pako might be a better choice due to its smaller size.
* **Compression ratio**: Fflate generally provides a better compression ratio than pako.
* **Compatibility**: If you need to support older browsers or specific platforms, fflate might be a safer bet due to its wider compatibility.

**Special JS Features and Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of two libraries for file compression.

In summary, the provided benchmark allows users to compare the performance of pako and fflate for file compression. By analyzing the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make an informed decision about which library best suits their needs.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:132.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/132.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 132 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
zip pako a	3611.8 Ops/sec
zip pako b	2850.3 Ops/sec
zip fflate a	17462.8 Ops/sec
zip fflate b	5346.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

pako vs. fflate (version: 0)

emulate file compression/decompression

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

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

zip pako a

zip pako 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):