Benchmark: decoding with JSON.decode and atob

Script Preparation code:

var encoded = [];
var decoded = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
  decoded.push({"supports":{"moduleMove":true,"moduleDuplicate":true,"moduleDelete":true,"imageResize":true,"imageAlign":true,"imageCaption":true,"imageFullWidth":false},"fitsInContent":true,"alias":null,"isInSectionLoop":false,"imageId":Math.round(Math.random() * 10000),"imageAnimated":false,"imagePosition":1,"imageFit":true,"caption":"","link":"","linkTarget":"","imageAlt":"","linkTitle":"","iiePayload":{"zoom":2.0286,"cropXRatio":1,"cropYRatio":1,"version":1},"imageWidth":900,"imageHeight":382,"imageUrl":"https:\/\/diydev-shard01-cms.petsi.lan\/webseitendaten\/656\/563\/460\/images\/cache\/98.jpg?t=1475494410","origImageUrl":"https:\/\/diydev-shard01-cms.petsi.lan\/webseitendaten\/656\/563\/460\/images\/upload\/98.jpg?t=1475494410","origImageWidth":1600,"origImageHeight":1065,"transformedImageUrl":null,"transformedImageWidth":null,"transformedImageHeight":null,"imageMediaType":"JPEG","teaserboxWidth":900,"teaserboxHeight":700,"isFullwidth":false});
  encoded.push(btoa(JSON.stringify(decoded[i])));
}

AخA
 
var encoded = [];var decoded = [];for (var i = 0; i < 500; i++) {  decoded.push({"supports":{"moduleMove":true,"moduleDuplicate":true,"moduleDelete":true,"imageResize":true,"imageAlign":true,"imageCaption":true,"imageFullWidth":false},"fitsInContent":true,"alias":null,"isInSectionLoop":false,"imageId":Math.round(Math.random() * 10000),"imageAnimated":false,"imagePosition":1,"imageFit":true,"caption":"","link":"","linkTarget":"","imageAlt":"","linkTitle":"","iiePayload":{"zoom":2.0286,"cropXRatio":1,"cropYRatio":1,"version":1},"imageWidth":900,"imageHeight":382,"imageUrl":"https:\/\/diydev-shard01-cms.petsi.lan\/webseitendaten\/656\/563\/460\/images\/cache\/98.jpg?t=1475494410","origImageUrl":"https:\/\/diydev-shard01-cms.petsi.lan\/webseitendaten\/656\/563\/460\/images\/upload\/98.jpg?t=1475494410","origImageWidth":1600,"origImageHeight":1065,"transformedImageUrl":null,"transformedImageWidth":null,"transformedImageHeight":null,"imageMediaType":"JPEG","teaserboxWidth":900,"teaserboxHeight":700,"isFullwidth":false});  encoded.push(btoa(JSON.stringify(decoded[i])));}

Tests:

decoding

for (var j = 0; j < encoded.length; j++) {
  console.log(JSON.parse(atob(encoded[j])));
}

 
for (var j = 0; j < encoded.length; j++) {  console.log(JSON.parse(atob(encoded[j])));}

no decoding
for (var k = 0; k < decoded.length; k++) { console.log(decoded[k]); }
for (var k = 0; k < decoded.length; k++) {
console.log(decoded[k]);
}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
decoding
no decoding

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
decoding	121.9 Ops/sec
no decoding	294.3 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

Benchmark Definition

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases:

**"decoding"**: This test case is testing how long it takes to decode a base64-encoded string using atob(base64 decoding function) and then parse the resulting string withJSON.parse`.
**"no decoding"**: This test case is testing how long it takes to simply log the decoded` array, without any decoding or parsing.

Comparison

The two test cases are being compared in terms of their execution times:

"decoding": measures the time taken to decode a base64-encoded string and parse the resulting JSON object.
"no decoding": measures the time taken to simply log the decoded array (without decoding or parsing).

Options Compared

There are two main options being compared:

Decoding using atob followed by parsing with JSON.parse: This approach involves first encoding the decoded array as a base64 string using btoa, and then decoding it back to a JSON object using atob.
Not decoding or parsing the data: In this case, the decoded array is simply logged without any further processing.

Pros and Cons

Decoding using atob followed by parsing with JSON.parse:
- Pros: This approach ensures that the decoded string is in a format that can be easily used by JavaScript, as it's already in JSON format.
- Cons: This approach introduces extra processing steps, which may increase execution time due to additional function calls and data conversions.
Not decoding or parsing the data:
- Pros: This approach avoids introducing additional processing steps, which means shorter execution times for this specific test case.
- Cons: The resulting decoded array is not in a format that can be easily used by JavaScript, as it's still in a binary format.

Library and Special JS Feature

In both test cases, the JSON.parse() function from the built-in JSON object library is used to parse JSON data. There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested.

Other Alternatives

If you wanted to compare alternative approaches for decoding base64-encoded strings, some options could be:

Using a custom base64 decoding implementation instead of atob.
Using a different decoding algorithm, such as binary-safe string encoding.
Comparing the performance of using JSON.stringify() and then parsing with atob, versus simply logging the decoded data.

However, for this specific benchmark, the main focus is on comparing the execution times of two approaches: decoding using atob followed by parsing with JSON.parse, versus not decoding or parsing the data.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases:

1. **"decoding"`**: This test case is testing how long it takes to decode a base64-encoded string using `atob` (base64 decoding function) and then parse the resulting string with `JSON.parse`.
2. **"no decoding"`**: This test case is testing how long it takes to simply log the `decoded` array, without any decoding or parsing.

**Comparison**

The two test cases are being compared in terms of their execution times:

* "decoding": measures the time taken to decode a base64-encoded string and parse the resulting JSON object.
* "no decoding": measures the time taken to simply log the `decoded` array (without decoding or parsing).

**Options Compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **Decoding using `atob` followed by parsing with `JSON.parse`**: This approach involves first encoding the `decoded` array as a base64 string using `btoa`, and then decoding it back to a JSON object using `atob`.
2. **Not decoding or parsing the data**: In this case, the `decoded` array is simply logged without any further processing.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Decoding using `atob` followed by parsing with `JSON.parse`**:
	* Pros: This approach ensures that the decoded string is in a format that can be easily used by JavaScript, as it's already in JSON format.
	* Cons: This approach introduces extra processing steps, which may increase execution time due to additional function calls and data conversions.
2. **Not decoding or parsing the data**:
	* Pros: This approach avoids introducing additional processing steps, which means shorter execution times for this specific test case.
	* Cons: The resulting `decoded` array is not in a format that can be easily used by JavaScript, as it's still in a binary format.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

In both test cases, the `JSON.parse()` function from the built-in `JSON` object library is used to parse JSON data. There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare alternative approaches for decoding base64-encoded strings, some options could be:

* Using a custom base64 decoding implementation instead of `atob`.
* Using a different decoding algorithm, such as binary-safe string encoding.
* Comparing the performance of using `JSON.stringify()` and then parsing with `atob`, versus simply logging the decoded data.

However, for this specific benchmark, the main focus is on comparing the execution times of two approaches: decoding using `atob` followed by parsing with `JSON.parse`, versus not decoding or parsing the data.

Related benchmarks:

decoding with JSON.decode and atob (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: decoding vs no decoding

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result