Benchmark: Atob JWT Decode - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function decode() {
    var token = "eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ.SflKxwRJSMeKKF2QT4fwpMeJf36POk6yJV_adQssw5c";
    return "customer_id" in JSON.parse(atob(token.split(".")[1]));
}

Tests:

decode
decode()
decode()
decode()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
decode
decode()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition Json**

The benchmark definition json represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the performance of decoding a JSON Web Token (JWT) using the `atob` function in combination with `JSON.parse`. Here's what's being tested:

* The input token is encoded as a base64 string using the `atob` function.
* The decoded token is then parsed as JSON using `JSON.parse`.
* The benchmark checks if the "customer_id" key exists in the parsed JSON object.

**Options Compared**

There are two options compared in this benchmark:

1. **decode()**: This option uses a single line of code to define the `decode` function, which contains the entire logic for decoding the JWT token.
2. **decode()**: This is another identical option that defines the same `decode` function as above.

In essence, these two options are essentially identical and serve only to test the overhead or differences in execution between them. It's likely that the benchmark author wanted to ensure that the "function declaration" overhead (i.e., setting up the function scope) doesn't affect performance.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

The main difference between these two options is the impact on function declaration overhead:

* **decode()**: By using a single line of code, this option minimizes the overhead associated with declaring a separate function.
* **decode()**: This option has slightly higher overhead due to the extra semicolon and function declaration.

In general, minimizing function declaration overhead can lead to performance improvements in JavaScript benchmarks. However, for most real-world scenarios, this difference is likely negligible unless you're dealing with extremely performance-critical code.

**Library**

The `atob` function is a built-in function in JavaScript that decodes base64 strings. Its purpose is to take a base64-encoded string and return the decoded binary data as an array of integers.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for testing this benchmark, here are some options:

* Use `URL` API instead of `atob`: You could use the `URL` API to decode the base64 token, which might be more efficient than using `atob`.
* Compare with `JSON.parse(atob(token))`: This option would compare the performance of decoding the JWT token directly without creating a separate function.
* Add more test cases: Consider adding additional test cases that simulate different input scenarios (e.g., invalid tokens, edge cases) to ensure the benchmark is robust.

I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
decode	992124.1 Ops/sec
decode()	984645.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Atob JWT Decode (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: decode vs decode()

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

decode

decode()

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):