Benchmark: base64 vs json.stringify

Script Preparation code:

var dataShort = rand();
var dataLong = Array.from({ length: 100 }, rand).join("\n");
function rand() {
  return Math.random().toString(36);
}

Tests:

base64 short string
btoa(dataShort);
base64 long string
btoa(dataLong);
json short string
JSON.stringify(dataShort);
json long string
JSON.stringify(dataLong);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
base64 short string
base64 long string
json short string
json long string

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The MeasureThat.net website allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark compares the execution times of two methods: `btoa` (base64 encoding) and `JSON.stringify`. These methods are used to encode data in a compact binary format.

**Test Cases**

There are four test cases:

1. **Base64 Short String**: Measures the execution time of `btoa(dataShort)`
2. **Base64 Long String**: Measures the execution time of `btoa(dataLong)`
3. **JSON Short String**: Measures the execution time of `JSON.stringify(dataShort)`
4. **JSON Long String**: Measures the execution time of `JSON.stringify(dataLong)`

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two encoding methods:

1. **Base64 (btoa)**: A binary-safe encoding scheme that represents data as a 64-character base64 string.
2. **JSON.stringify**: A method from the JavaScript standard library that converts a value to a JSON string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Base64 (btoa)**

Pros:

* Compact binary format
* Fast execution times

Cons:

* Not human-readable or machine-readable without additional processing
* May not be suitable for all data types (e.g., non-ASCII characters)

**JSON.stringify**

Pros:

* Human-readable and easy to debug
* Suitable for most data types, including strings, numbers, and objects

Cons:

* Larger byte size compared to base64
* Slower execution times due to string concatenation and JSON parsing

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, `btoa` uses the Web API's built-in base64 encoding function.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. The code only employs standard JavaScript constructs like variables, strings, and functions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative encoding methods, consider:

1. **URLSearchParams**: A modern API for encoding URL parameters.
2. **text-encoding libraries**: Such as `utf8-escape` or `base64-js`, which provide more control over the encoding process.
3. **Custom encoding algorithms**: Depending on your specific requirements, you may want to implement a custom encoding algorithm using JavaScript.

**Example Use Cases**

Base64 encoding is commonly used in scenarios like:

* Data storage and transmission (e.g., images, videos, or audio files)
* URL parameter encoding
* Security-related applications (e.g., encryption, authentication)

JSON.stringify is often used for:

* Debugging and logging purposes
* Serializing data structures (e.g., objects, arrays) for storage or transfer
* Displaying data in human-readable formats

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 hours ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
base64 short string	6448091.5 Ops/sec
base64 long string	1560988.4 Ops/sec
json short string	8614449.0 Ops/sec
json long string	350949.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

base64 vs json.stringify (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: base64 short string vs base64 long string vs json short string vs json long string

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

base64 short string

base64 long string

json short string

json long string

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):