Benchmark: ArrayBuffer - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var str = "aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7";

var chars = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/";

// Use a lookup table to find the index.
var lookup = new Uint8Array(256);
for (var i = 0; i < chars.length; i++) {
  lookup[chars.charCodeAt(i)] = i;
}

function decode(base64) {
    var bufferLength = base64.length * 0.75,
    len = base64.length, i, p = 0,
    encoded1, encoded2, encoded3, encoded4;

    if (base64[base64.length - 1] === "=") {
      bufferLength--;
      if (base64[base64.length - 2] === "=") {
        bufferLength--;
      }
    }

    var arraybuffer = new ArrayBuffer(bufferLength),
    bytes = new Uint8Array(arraybuffer);

    for (i = 0; i < len; i+=4) {
      encoded1 = lookup[base64.charCodeAt(i)];
      encoded2 = lookup[base64.charCodeAt(i+1)];
      encoded3 = lookup[base64.charCodeAt(i+2)];
      encoded4 = lookup[base64.charCodeAt(i+3)];

      bytes[p++] = (encoded1 << 2) | (encoded2 >> 4);
      bytes[p++] = ((encoded2 & 15) << 4) | (encoded3 >> 2);
      bytes[p++] = ((encoded3 & 3) << 6) | (encoded4 & 63);
    }

    return arraybuffer;
  };

function _base64ToArrayBuffer(base64) {
    var binary_string =  window.atob(base64);
    var len = binary_string.length;
    var bytes = new Uint8Array( len );
    for (var i = 0; i < len; i++)        {
        bytes[i] = binary_string.charCodeAt(i);
    }
    return bytes.buffer;
}

​x
 
var str = "aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7";​var chars = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/";​// Use a lookup table to find the index.var lookup = new Uint8Array(256);for (var i = 0; i < chars.length; i++) {  lookup[chars.charCodeAt(i)] = i;}​function decode(base64) {    var bufferLength = base64.length * 0.75,    len = base64.length, i, p = 0,    encoded1, encoded2, encoded3, encoded4;​    if (base64[base64.length - 1] === "=") {      bufferLength--;      if (base64[base64.length - 2] === "=") {        bufferLength--;      }    }​    var arraybuffer = new ArrayBuffer(bufferLength),    bytes = new Uint8Array(arraybuffer);​    for (i = 0; i < len; i+=4) {      encoded1 = lookup[base64.charCodeAt(i)];      encoded2 = lookup[base64.charCodeAt(i+1)];      encoded3 = lookup[base64.charCodeAt(i+2)];      encoded4 = lookup[base64.charCodeAt(i+3)];​      bytes[p++] = (encoded1 << 2) | (encoded2 >> 4);      bytes[p++] = ((encoded2 & 15) << 4) | (encoded3 >> 2);      bytes[p++] = ((encoded3 & 3) << 6) | (encoded4 & 63);    }​    return arraybuffer;  };​function _base64ToArrayBuffer(base64) {    var binary_string =  window.atob(base64);    var len = binary_string.length;    var bytes = new Uint8Array( len );    for (var i = 0; i < len; i++)        {        bytes[i] = binary_string.charCodeAt(i);    }    return bytes.buffer;}

Tests:

Cached decode
decode(str);
decode(str);
Simple decode
_base64ToArrayBuffer(str);
_base64ToArrayBuffer(str);

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
Cached decode
Simple decode

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) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/102.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 102 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Cached decode	350887.1 Ops/sec
Simple decode	1617973.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explain what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

Benchmark Definition Json

The provided JSON represents a benchmark for testing the performance of two functions: decode and _base64ToArrayBuffer. The decode function is responsible for decoding a base64-encoded string, while _base64ToArrayBuffer simply converts a base64-encoded string to an array buffer.

Options Compared

There are two options being compared:

Simple Decode: This option uses the _base64ToArrayBuffer function, which is implemented using the atob() method in modern browsers.
Cached Decode: This option uses a custom implementation of the decode function, which appears to be a cached version of the original decode function.

Pros and Cons

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

Simple Decode:
- Pros: This approach is simple and easy to implement.
- Cons: It relies on the browser's built-in atob() method, which might not be as efficient as a custom implementation.
Cached Decode:
- Pros: This approach can potentially be faster due to the caching mechanism, but it also requires more code and complexity.
- Cons: If the caching is not done correctly, it could lead to performance issues or even crashes.

Library and Purpose

The atob() method is a built-in function in modern browsers that converts a base64-encoded string to a binary string. It's used in the _base64ToArrayBuffer function to perform the conversion.

Special JS Feature/Syntax

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark, except for the use of atob() which is a built-in method in modern browsers.

Other Considerations

When dealing with browser-specific code like this, it's essential to consider factors such as:

Browser support: Make sure the benchmark works across different browsers and versions.
Performance overhead: Consider any additional performance overhead due to things like caching or DOM manipulation.
Code complexity: Balance simplicity with performance.

Alternatives

If you're looking for alternative approaches to measure base64 decoding performance, here are a few options:

Use a dedicated library: There are libraries like base64-js that provide optimized implementations of base64 decoding algorithms.
Implement a custom algorithm: You could implement your own base64 decoding algorithm using native code or WebAssembly (WASM) for better performance.
Use an existing benchmark: MeasureThat.net itself is just one example of a benchmarking platform; you can explore other options like Benchmark.js, jsperf, or even Google's V8 benchmark.

In summary, the benchmark on MeasureThat.net compares two approaches to base64 decoding: using the _base64ToArrayBuffer function and implementing a cached version of the decode function. While there are pros and cons to each approach, using a custom implementation with caching can potentially lead to better performance.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explain what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition Json**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark for testing the performance of two functions: `decode` and `_base64ToArrayBuffer`. The `decode` function is responsible for decoding a base64-encoded string, while `_base64ToArrayBuffer` simply converts a base64-encoded string to an array buffer.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Simple Decode**: This option uses the `_base64ToArrayBuffer` function, which is implemented using the `atob()` method in modern browsers.
2. **Cached Decode**: This option uses a custom implementation of the `decode` function, which appears to be a cached version of the original `decode` function.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Simple Decode**:
	* Pros: This approach is simple and easy to implement.
	* Cons: It relies on the browser's built-in `atob()` method, which might not be as efficient as a custom implementation.
2. **Cached Decode**:
	* Pros: This approach can potentially be faster due to the caching mechanism, but it also requires more code and complexity.
	* Cons: If the caching is not done correctly, it could lead to performance issues or even crashes.

**Library and Purpose**

The `atob()` method is a built-in function in modern browsers that converts a base64-encoded string to a binary string. It's used in the `_base64ToArrayBuffer` function to perform the conversion.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark, except for the use of `atob()` which is a built-in method in modern browsers.

**Other Considerations**

When dealing with browser-specific code like this, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Browser support: Make sure the benchmark works across different browsers and versions.
* Performance overhead: Consider any additional performance overhead due to things like caching or DOM manipulation.
* Code complexity: Balance simplicity with performance.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to measure base64 decoding performance, here are a few options:

1. **Use a dedicated library**: There are libraries like `base64-js` that provide optimized implementations of base64 decoding algorithms.
2. **Implement a custom algorithm**: You could implement your own base64 decoding algorithm using native code or WebAssembly (WASM) for better performance.
3. **Use an existing benchmark**: MeasureThat.net itself is just one example of a benchmarking platform; you can explore other options like Benchmark.js, jsperf, or even Google's V8 benchmark.

In summary, the benchmark on MeasureThat.net compares two approaches to base64 decoding: using the `_base64ToArrayBuffer` function and implementing a cached version of the `decode` function. While there are pros and cons to each approach, using a custom implementation with caching can potentially lead to better performance.

Related benchmarks:

ArrayBuffer (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Cached decode vs Simple decode

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Cached decode

Simple decode

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):