Benchmark: Validate performance of JWT string validation by decoding vs basic string match

Script Preparation code:

var token = "eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiY3VzdG9tZXJfaWQiOiJqb2huZG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ.ScbjLEXxqzZQ9JEw5yQu2MLlGsLhHzMlg7aZHZnH4Ro";

function decodeAndTest() {
    return "customer_id" in JSON.parse(atob(token.split(".")[1]));
}

var encodedCustId = "Y3VzdG9tZXJfaWQ=";

function testWithoutDecoding() {
  return token.indexOf(encodedCustId) >= 0;
}

Tests:

decodeAndTest()
decodeAndTest()
testWithoutDecoding()
testWithoutDecoding()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
decodeAndTest()
testWithoutDecoding()

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'll break down the provided JSON for you.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark measures the performance of two different approaches to validate a JSON Web Token (JWT) string:

1. **Basic String Match:** This approach uses the `indexOf()` method to search for a specific substring (`encodedCustId`) within the JWT token string.
2. **JSON Decoding:** This approach uses the `JSON.parse()` function to decode the JWT token and then checks if a certain property (`customer_id`) exists in the decoded object.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark compares these two approaches:

* Basic String Match (using `indexOf()`)
* JSON Decoding (using `JSON.parse()`)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Basic String Match (using `indexOf()`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and lightweight
		+ Can be implemented with minimal overhead
	* Cons:
		+ May not work correctly if the token string is malformed or contains unexpected characters
		+ Not suitable for large-scale applications where security is a concern
2. **JSON Decoding (using `JSON.parse()`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a more secure way to access token data, as it decodes the token into a JavaScript object
		+ Can handle malformed or unexpected characters in the token string
	* Cons:
		+ More computationally expensive than the basic string match approach
		+ May incur additional overhead due to parsing and decoding the token

**Library Used:**

The benchmark uses the `JSON` library, which is a built-in JavaScript library that provides functions for working with JSON data.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

* **JSON.parse()**: This function takes a JSON string as input and returns a JavaScript object. It's used to decode the JWT token.
* **atob()**: This function takes a Base64-encoded string as input and returns a binary string. In this benchmark, it's used to extract the payload from the JWT token.

**Other Considerations:**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the trade-offs between security, performance, and complexity. If security is a top concern, JSON decoding might be a better choice. However, if speed and lightweight implementation are more important, the basic string match approach might be sufficient.

**Alternative Approaches:**

Other alternatives to these approaches could include:

* Using a dedicated JWT library or SDK that provides optimized functions for token validation
* Implementing custom parsing logic using regular expressions or other techniques
* Using a different data structure or algorithm for token validation

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 17_2_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.2 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 17 on iOS 17.2.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
decodeAndTest()	1839141.0 Ops/sec
testWithoutDecoding()	7607919.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Validate performance of JWT string validation by decoding vs basic string match (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: decodeAndTest() vs testWithoutDecoding()

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

decodeAndTest()

testWithoutDecoding()

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):