Benchmark: ArrayBuffer - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var str = "aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7";

var chars = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/";
var encoder = new TextEncoder();

function _base64ToArrayBufferOptimized(base64) {
    return encoder.encode(base64);
}

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 = "aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7aa34a5b6c5acb67acb5acb678acb6ac4b5a6c7b5a4c3b45a67c8b76a54cb34a5c6b7";​var chars = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/";var encoder = new TextEncoder();​function _base64ToArrayBufferOptimized(base64) {    return encoder.encode(base64);}​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:

Encoder
_base64ToArrayBufferOptimized(str);
_base64ToArrayBufferOptimized(str);
Simple
_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
Encoder
Simple

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 18_3_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) FxiOS/135.2 Mobile/15E148 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 18 on iOS 18.3.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Encoder	5024713.0 Ops/sec
Simple	656130.0 Ops/sec

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

I'll break down the benchmark and its results in a way that's easy to understand, even for those without deep knowledge of JavaScript.

What is being tested?

The provided JSON represents two microbenchmarks: ArrayBuffer and two test cases named "Encoder" and "Simple". The tests are designed to measure the performance of converting base64-encoded strings to ArrayBuffer objects.

Options compared

Two options are compared:

_base64ToArrayBufferOptimized(base64): This function uses the TextEncoder API, which is a modern way to work with Uint8Array and ArrayBuffers in JavaScript.
_base64ToArrayBuffer(base64): This function uses the window.atob() method, which is an older way to decode base64-encoded strings.

Pros and Cons of each approach

TextEncoder API (Optimized):

Pros:

More efficient and modern
Better support for large datasets and streaming data

Cons:

Requires a relatively new browser version (Firefox 130 or later)
May have performance variations depending on the browser's implementation

window.atob() method:

Pros:

Widespread support across older browsers and versions
Simpler to implement

Cons:

Less efficient, especially for large datasets
May not work well with streaming data

Other considerations

The tests use a large base64-encoded string (str) as input, which may affect the results.
The TextEncoder API is generally faster and more efficient than using window.atob().

Library used

The TextEncoder API is used in the optimized function. It's a built-in JavaScript library that provides a way to encode strings into Uint8Array objects.

Special JS feature or syntax

None mentioned, as both test cases use standard JavaScript features.

Benchmark preparation code

The provided script preparation code generates a large base64-encoded string (str) and defines two functions: _base64ToArrayBufferOptimized and _base64ToArrayBuffer. These functions are then used in the benchmark definitions.

Alternatives

If you need to measure performance of converting base64-encoded strings to ArrayBuffers in older browsers, you may want to consider using a library like base64-js, which provides a more efficient and modern way to work with base64 encoding.

Additionally, if you're interested in exploring other approaches or testing different libraries, you can look into:

Using Web Workers to parallelize the tests
Measuring performance using other benchmarking tools, such as WebPageTest or Apache JMeter
Testing different input sizes and scenarios

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and its results in a way that's easy to understand, even for those without deep knowledge of JavaScript.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two microbenchmarks: `ArrayBuffer` and two test cases named "Encoder" and "Simple". The tests are designed to measure the performance of converting base64-encoded strings to ArrayBuffer objects.

**Options compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **_base64ToArrayBufferOptimized(base64)**: This function uses the `TextEncoder` API, which is a modern way to work with Uint8Array and ArrayBuffers in JavaScript.
2. **_base64ToArrayBuffer(base64)**: This function uses the `window.atob()` method, which is an older way to decode base64-encoded strings.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**TextEncoder API (Optimized):**

Pros:

* More efficient and modern
* Better support for large datasets and streaming data

Cons:

* Requires a relatively new browser version (Firefox 130 or later)
* May have performance variations depending on the browser's implementation

**`window.atob()` method:**

Pros:

* Widespread support across older browsers and versions
* Simpler to implement

Cons:

* Less efficient, especially for large datasets
* May not work well with streaming data

**Other considerations**

* The tests use a large base64-encoded string (`str`) as input, which may affect the results.
* The `TextEncoder` API is generally faster and more efficient than using `window.atob()`.

**Library used**

The `TextEncoder` API is used in the optimized function. It's a built-in JavaScript library that provides a way to encode strings into Uint8Array objects.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None mentioned, as both test cases use standard JavaScript features.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The provided script preparation code generates a large base64-encoded string (`str`) and defines two functions: `_base64ToArrayBufferOptimized` and `_base64ToArrayBuffer`. These functions are then used in the benchmark definitions.

**Alternatives**

If you need to measure performance of converting base64-encoded strings to ArrayBuffers in older browsers, you may want to consider using a library like `base64-js`, which provides a more efficient and modern way to work with base64 encoding.

Additionally, if you're interested in exploring other approaches or testing different libraries, you can look into:

* Using Web Workers to parallelize the tests
* Measuring performance using other benchmarking tools, such as WebPageTest or Apache JMeter
* Testing different input sizes and scenarios

Related benchmarks:

ArrayBuffer (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Encoder vs Simple

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Encoder

Simple

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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