Benchmark: compression libraries

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://unpkg.com/fflate"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/pako/2.0.3/pako.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var enc = new TextEncoder();
var a = new Uint8Array([...Array(1000000).keys()]);
var b = enc.encode('The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog')
var ca = pako.gzip(a)
var cb = pako.gzip(b)
console.log(cb)

Tests:

unzip pako a
pako.inflate(ca)
unzip pako b
pako.inflate(cb)
zip pako a
pako.deflate(a)
zip pako b
pako.deflate(b)
unzip fflate a
fflate.decompressSync(ca);
unzip fflate b
fflate.decompressSync(cb);
zip fflate a
fflate.gzipSync(a)
zip fflate b
fflate.gzipSync(b)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
unzip pako a
unzip pako b
zip pako a
zip pako b
unzip fflate a
unzip fflate b
zip fflate a
zip fflate b

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

unzip fflate b

820K/s

unzip pako b

29K/s

zip fflate b

11K/s

zip pako b

5K/s

unzip fflate a

441/s

unzip pako a

170/s

zip fflate a

55/s

zip pako a

47/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ unzip fflate b	819,896 Ops/sec
unzip pako b	29,196 Ops/sec
zip fflate b	10,962 Ops/sec
zip pako b	4,644 Ops/sec
unzip fflate a	441 Ops/sec
unzip pako a	170 Ops/sec
zip fflate a	55 Ops/sec
zip pako a	47 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is an intricate task, and understanding the nuances of each benchmark is crucial.

**Compression Libraries: Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test that compares the performance of two compression libraries: pako and fflate. The test uses JavaScript to create a large Uint8Array, encode it with both libraries, compress it using gzip, and then decompress the resulting buffers. The goal is to determine which library performs better in terms of execution speed.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the following options:

1. **pako**: A popular JavaScript compression library that provides various encoding and decoding algorithms.
2. **fflate**: A lightweight JavaScript implementation of the DEFLATE algorithm, which is commonly used for compressing data.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **pako**:
	+ Pros:
		- Well-established and widely-used library
		- Supports multiple compression formats (e.g., gzip, zip)
		- Robust API with various encoding and decoding methods
	+ Cons:
		- Larger in size compared to fflate
		- May have slower execution times due to its complexity
* **fflate**:
	+ Pros:
		- Lightweight and compact
		- Fast execution times, especially for small inputs
		- Simple API with minimal dependencies
	+ Cons:
		- Less widely-used and maintained compared to pako
		- Limited support for compression formats (currently only DEFLATE)

**Library Considerations:**

* **pako**: A reliable choice for most use cases, but may not be the best option when size and speed are critical.
* **fflate**: Suitable for small to medium-sized inputs or applications where speed is paramount.

**Special JS Features/Syntax (None)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of two compression libraries using standard JavaScript constructs.

**Alternatives:**

If you need to compress data in JavaScript, other alternatives include:

1. **zlib**: A widely-used JavaScript library that provides various encoding and decoding algorithms.
2. **jszip**: A lightweight JavaScript library for working with zip files.
3. **lz-string**: A compact JavaScript library for lossless compression.

Keep in mind that each of these libraries has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific use case and requirements.

compression libraries (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `unzip pako a vs unzip pako b vs zip pako a vs zip pako b vs unzip fflate a vs unzip fflate b vs zip fflate a vs zip fflate b`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

unzip pako a

unzip pako b

zip pako a

zip pako b

unzip fflate a

unzip fflate b

zip fflate a

zip fflate b

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

compression libraries (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: unzip pako a vs unzip pako b vs zip pako a vs zip pako b vs unzip fflate a vs unzip fflate b vs zip fflate a vs zip fflate b

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

unzip pako a

unzip pako b

zip pako a

zip pako b

unzip fflate a

unzip fflate b

zip fflate a

zip fflate b

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `unzip pako a vs unzip pako b vs zip pako a vs zip pako b vs unzip fflate a vs unzip fflate b vs zip fflate a vs zip fflate b`