Benchmark: array buffer to hex conversion 6 methods vs base64 2 methods

Script Preparation code:

var saltVal = crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(16));

function arrayBufferToHexString(bytes) {
    bytes = new Uint8Array(bytes);
    var hex = new Array(bytes.length);
    for (let i = 0; i < bytes.length; i++) {
        hex[i] = ("0" + bytes[i].toString(16)).slice(-2);
    }
    return hex.join("");
}

function bytesToHexString(bytes) {
    bytes = new Uint8Array(bytes);
    var hexBytes = [];
    for (var i = 0; i < bytes.length; i++) {
        var byteString = bytes[i].toString(16);
        if (byteString.length < 2) byteString = "0" + byteString;
        hexBytes.push(byteString);
    }
    return hexBytes.join("");
}

function buf2hex(buffer) { // buffer is an ArrayBuffer
  return [...new Uint8Array(buffer)]
      .map(x => x.toString(16).padStart(2, '0'))
      .join('');
}

function hex(arrayBuffer)
{
  	const asciiCodes = new Uint8Array(
    	Array.prototype.map.call(
        	"0123456789abcdef",
        	char => char.charCodeAt()
    	)
	);
  
    const buff = new Uint8Array(arrayBuffer);
    const charCodes = new Uint8Array(buff.length * 2);

    for (let i = 0; i < buff.length; ++i)
    {
        charCodes[i * 2] = asciiCodes[buff[i] >>> 4];
        charCodes[i * 2 + 1] = asciiCodes[buff[i] & 0xf];
    }

    return String.fromCharCode(...charCodes);
}

function hex2(arrayBuffer)
{
    return Array.prototype.map.call(
        new Uint8Array(arrayBuffer),
        n => n.toString(16).padStart(2, "0")
    ).join("");
}

function arrayBufferToBase64(buffer) {
  const byteArray = new Uint8Array(buffer);
  const binaryString = byteArray.reduce((acc, byte) => acc + String.fromCharCode(byte), "");
  return btoa(binaryString);
}

function arrayBufferToBase64loop( buffer ) {
    var binary = '';
    var bytes = new Uint8Array( buffer );
    var len = bytes.byteLength;
    for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) {
        binary += String.fromCharCode( bytes[ i ] );
    }
    return window.btoa( binary );
}

function bytesToHexString2(bytes) {
    bytes = new Uint8Array(bytes);
    var hexBytes = '';
    for (var i = 0; i < bytes.length; i++) {
        var byteString = bytes[i].toString(16);
        if (byteString.length < 2) byteString = "0" + byteString;
        hexBytes += byteString;
    }
    return hexBytes;
}

Tests:

directly set
arrayBufferToHexString(saltVal);
push values
bytesToHexString(saltVal)
buf2hex()
buf2hex(saltVal)
precomputed ASCII with shift
hex(saltVal)
array prototype map
hex2(saltVal)
base64
arrayBufferToBase64(saltVal)
base64 loop
arrayBufferToBase64loop(saltVal)
string +
bytesToHexString2(saltVal)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
directly set
push values
buf2hex()
precomputed ASCII with shift
array prototype map
base64
base64 loop
string +

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 14 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
directly set	1583011.6 Ops/sec
push values	3412300.8 Ops/sec
buf2hex()	1614422.4 Ops/sec
precomputed ASCII with shift	746656.6 Ops/sec
array prototype map	1084929.6 Ops/sec
base64	3421159.0 Ops/sec
base64 loop	4303151.0 Ops/sec
string +	5606879.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 14 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark in question evaluates the performance of different methods for converting an ArrayBuffer to hexadecimal and Base64 string formats. Here's a breakdown of the various approaches that are tested:

### Approaches Compared

1. **Hex Conversion Methods**:
    - **`arrayBufferToHexString(saltVal);`**: Directly constructs a hexadecimal string from each byte in the ArrayBuffer.
    - **`bytesToHexString(saltVal)`**: Similar to the first method but approaches the task using a `push` operation in the loop.
    - **`buf2hex(saltVal)`**: Uses modern JavaScript syntax and spreads the Uint8Array to create the hex string.
    - **`hex(arrayBuffer)`**: Uses precomputed ASCII values for hexadecimal characters, efficiently mapping the bytes to their hex equivalents.
    - **`hex2(arrayBuffer)`**: Employs the `Array.prototype.map` method to iterate over each byte for conversion.

2. **Base64 Conversion Methods**:
    - **`arrayBufferToBase64(buffer)`**: Converts an ArrayBuffer to a Base64 string by creating a binary string from the byte values and using `btoa()` for conversion.
    - **`arrayBufferToBase64loop(buffer)`**: Similar to the previous method but constructs the binary string using a loop instead of a `reduce` method.

3. **A New Hex Conversion Method**:
    - **`bytesToHexString2(saltVal)`**: This method constructs a hex string by concatenating results as an operation, showcasing a different string-building strategy.

### Pros and Cons of Each Approach

- **Directly Set vs. Push Values**:
    - **`arrayBufferToHexString`**: May offer better performance due to no intermediate storage. 
    - **`bytesToHexString`**: Slightly less efficient due to operations on arrays but may lead to clearer code.

- **Using Modern Syntax with Spread** (`buf2hex`):
    - **Pros**: Makes the code cleaner and utilizes modern JavaScript capabilities.
    - **Cons**: Performance can vary depending on the implementation of spread in different JavaScript engines.

- **Precomputed ASCII Mapping** (`hex`):
    - **Pros**: Can be more efficient as it reduces the number of conversions by utilizing a lookup table.
    - **Cons**: Slightly more complex due to the array structure and initialization overhead.

- **`Array.prototype.map()` Approach (`hex2`)**:
    - **Pros**: Functional style that is more concise and expressive.
    - **Cons**: Can introduce additional overhead in performance due to function calls.

### Base64 Conversion Methods:
- **Concatenation vs Reduce**:
    - Using `reduce` (in `arrayBufferToBase64`) might be more readable and can leverage functional programming paradigms, while using a loop (in `arrayBufferToBase64loop`) is often simpler to grasp and might have different performance characteristics. Generally, loops can outperform higher-order functions in performance-critical paths.

### Benchmark Results Analysis
The performance measured by **Executions Per Second** indicates that the simplest concatenation methods (`bytesToHexString2` and `arrayBufferToBase64loop`) tend to perform the best. This could be attributed to lower computational overhead, as these methods avoid pooling intermediate results. On the other hand, `precomputed ASCII with shift` and `array prototype map` methods rank lower in speed, likely due to their added complexity and functional overhead.

### Alternatives
Beyond the methods explicitly outlined in the benchmark, there are other libraries and approaches that could be considered:

1. **Using Crypto API**: For sensitive operations, using the Web Crypto API can provide more secure encoding mechanisms.
2. **Libraries**:
   - **Buffer.js**: A library that handles binary data effectively and includes methods for encoding/decoding to and from different formats.
   - **Hex.js** or **Base64.js**: Libraries specifically designed for hex and base64 encoding/decoding, which may offer optimized performance.

By taking these considerations into account, software engineers can select the appropriate method based on their performance needs, code clarity, and the specific requirements of their project.

Related benchmarks:

array buffer to hex conversion 6 methods vs base64 2 methods (version: 1)

convert array buffer to hex

Comparing performance of: directly set vs push values vs buf2hex() vs precomputed ASCII with shift vs array prototype map vs base64 vs base64 loop vs string +

Created: 14 days ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

directly set

push values

buf2hex()

precomputed ASCII with shift

array prototype map

base64

base64 loop

string +

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 14 days ago):