In this benchmark, three different methods are compared for converting an ArrayBuffer to a hexadecimal string. Each method has its own approach for iterating through the buffer and constructing the hexadecimal representation, allowing for a performance comparison of these different implementations.

Methods Compared

1. arrayBufferToHexString:

   • This function converts an ArrayBuffer to a hexadecimal string by creating a new Uint8Array from the passed bytes, looping through each byte, converting it to a string representation in hexadecimal, and joining them together.
   • Pros:
     • Simple and straightforward implementation.
   • Cons:
     • It constructs an intermediate array of strings, which can incur additional memory overhead.
     • May be less efficient due to the usage of the slice method on the string for padding.

2. bytesToHexString:

   • Similar to the first method, this function also converts an ArrayBuffer to a hexadecimal string. However, it uses an array (hexBytes) to collect the hexadecimal strings before joining them at the end.
   • Pros:
     • Avoids the potential overhead of modifying the string format (like using slice), making the addition of padding explicit.
   • Cons:
     • Still constructs an intermediate array, and overall it may introduce similar performance issues as the first method.

3. buf2hex:

   • This method uses the spread operator to convert the Uint8Array directly into an array and maps over it to create the hexadecimal strings. The padStart method is used for padding the strings to maintain the correct length.
   • Pros:
     • More concise syntax due to the use of modern JavaScript features (spread operator and map).
     • Potentially better performance as it operates in a more functional style.
   • Cons:
     • The readability can be hampered for those not familiar with ES6+ syntax, making it potentially less approachable for developers who may be used to older JavaScript syntax.

Benchmark Results

The latest benchmark results show the executions per second for each method run in the Chrome 131 environment:

1. push values (bytesToHexString): 3,319,517.25 executions/second
2. directly set (arrayBufferToHexString): 2,392,962.5 executions/second
3. buf2hex(): 1,645,414.375 executions/second

From this data, we can deduce that the bytesToHexString method performed the best, followed by arrayBufferToHexString, with buf2hex being the least performant. This suggests that the way the Uint8Array values are aggregated significantly impacts performance.

Other Considerations

• Use of Uint8Array: All three methods rely on Uint8Array, which is a typed array that accommodates raw binary data efficiently, ideal for handling binary data such as that found in ArrayBuffer.
• Potential Alternative Approaches: Other alternatives that could be explored include:
  • Using external libraries like Buffer (Node.js) or libraries like he (for encoding/decoding HE hexadecimal strings), especially when handling larger datasets or requiring additional encoding features.
  • Implementations focusing on performance optimizations, such as using WebAssembly for critical performance-sensitive pathways, especially with larger ArrayBuffer sizes.

In conclusion, choosing the right conversion method depends on the specific context and constraints of the application, including performance requirements, readability, and maintainability.