Benchmark: Compare digest performance

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="
https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/xxhashjs@0.2.2/build/xxhash.min.js
"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = new Uint32Array(1024);
  window.crypto.getRandomValues(data);
  var dataBuffer = new Uint8Array(data);
  data = String.fromCharCode.apply(null, dataBuffer);
  
  
  // src: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/SubtleCrypto/digest
  function hex(buffer) {
    var hexCodes = [];
    var view = new DataView(buffer);
    for (var i = 0; i < view.byteLength; i += 4) {
      // Using getUint32 reduces the number of iterations needed (we process 4 bytes each time)
      var value = view.getUint32(i)
      // toString(16) will give the hex representation of the number without padding
      var stringValue = value.toString(16)
      // We use concatenation and slice for padding
      var padding = '00000000'
      var paddedValue = (padding + stringValue).slice(-padding.length)
      hexCodes.push(paddedValue);
    }
  
    // Join all the hex strings into one
    return hexCodes.join("");
  }

Tests:

crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-512")
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-512", dataBuffer ).then(function (hash) {console.log(hex(hash));});
xxHash64
console.log("xxHash:", XXH.h32().update(dataBuffer).digest().toString(16));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-512")
xxHash64

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 provide an explanation of the provided benchmark, comparing different approaches for digest performance.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two methods for calculating a SHA-512 hash using JavaScript: `crypto.subtle.digest()` and `xxHash`. The goal is to determine which method performs better in terms of execution speed.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`crypto.subtle.digest()`**: This method uses the Web Cryptography API to calculate a SHA-512 hash. It takes advantage of hardware acceleration to perform the hashing operation.
2. **`xxHash64`**: This is a JavaScript implementation of the xxHash algorithm, a fast and compact hashing function.

**Pros and Cons**

### `crypto.subtle.digest()`

Pros:

* Leverages Web Cryptography API for hardware acceleration
* Typically faster than software-based implementations
* More secure due to the use of cryptographic primitives

Cons:

* May require additional setup and configuration
* Can be slower in JavaScript engines without hardware acceleration (e.g., older browsers)
* Limited compatibility with older browsers or environments that don't support Web Cryptography API

### `xxHash64`

Pros:

* Fast and compact implementation
* Suitable for a wide range of platforms and browsers
* Easy to integrate into existing codebases

Cons:

* May not be as secure as `crypto.subtle.digest()` due to the use of a non-cryptographic algorithm
* Can be slower than `crypto.subtle.digest()` in JavaScript engines with hardware acceleration

**Library: SubtleCrypto**

The `SubtleCrypto` library is used by `crypto.subtle.digest()`. It provides a set of cryptographic primitives and APIs for secure data processing. The `digest()` method calculates the SHA-512 hash of a given input buffer.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: Web Cryptography API**

The Web Cryptography API (W3C) enables developers to use cryptographic primitives in web applications. It allows for secure data processing, encryption, and decryption, among other features. The `crypto.subtle.digest()` method leverages this API to perform SHA-512 hashing.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative hashing algorithms that could be used as benchmarks include:

* `crypto.subtle.digest('SHA-256')`: This option uses a different cryptographic hash function, but still benefits from hardware acceleration.
* `sha512.js`: A pure JavaScript implementation of the SHA-512 algorithm, which may not benefit from Web Cryptography API or hardware acceleration.

Note that the choice of hashing algorithm and implementation depends on the specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-512")	327394.7 Ops/sec
xxHash64	168504.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Compare digest performance (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-512") vs xxHash64

Created: 4 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-512")

xxHash64

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):