Benchmark: TextDecoder vs Js

Script Preparation code:

var arr = new Uint8Array([97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 97, 98, 99])
var decoder = new TextDecoder();
function decodeNative(arr) {
  return decoder.decode(arr);
}
function decodeCharCode(arr) {
  return String.fromCharCode.apply(null, arr);
}
function decoderJs(buffer) {
  var start = 0;
  var end = buffer.byteLength;

  if (end - start < 1) {
    return "";
  }

  var str = "";
  for (var i = start; i < end;) {
    var t = buffer[i++];

    if (t <= 0x7F) {
      str += String.fromCharCode(t);
    } else if (t >= 0xC0 && t < 0xE0) {
      str += String.fromCharCode((t & 0x1F) << 6 | buffer[i++] & 0x3F);
    } else if (t >= 0xE0 && t < 0xF0) {
      str += String.fromCharCode((t & 0xF) << 12 | (buffer[i++] & 0x3F) << 6 | buffer[i++] & 0x3F);
    } else if (t >= 0xF0) {
      var t2 = ((t & 7) << 18 | (buffer[i++] & 0x3F) << 12 | (buffer[i++] & 0x3F) << 6 | buffer[i++] & 0x3F) - 0x10000;
      str += String.fromCharCode(0xD800 + (t2 >> 10));
      str += String.fromCharCode(0xDC00 + (t2 & 0x3FF));
    }
  }
  return str;
}

Tests:

decodeNative
decodeNative(arr)
decodeCharCode
decodeCharCode(arr)
decoderJs
decoderJs(arr)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
decodeNative
decodeCharCode
decoderJs

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 18_3_2 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) CriOS/134.0.6998.99 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile iOS 134 on iOS 18.3.2

View result in a separate tab

decodeNative

5.0M/s

decoderJs

4.7M/s

decodeCharCode

2.7M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ decodeNative	4,998,054 Ops/sec
decoderJs	4,699,381 Ops/sec
decodeCharCode	2,663,639 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark tests three different approaches to decoding a UTF-8 encoded byte array:

1. `decodeNative(arr)`: Uses the built-in `TextDecoder` API to decode the byte array.
2. `decodeCharCode(arr)`: Manually decodes the byte array using the `String.fromCharCode.apply(null, arr)` method.
3. `decoderJs(buffer)`: A custom JavaScript function that manually decodes the byte array.

**Options Compared**

The three approaches are compared in terms of execution speed, measured by the number of executions per second.

* `decodeNative(arr)` uses the built-in `TextDecoder` API, which is a low-level, browser-specific implementation.
* `decodeCharCode(arr)` uses a manual, string-based approach that iterates over the byte array and converts each character to its corresponding Unicode code point using `String.fromCharCode.apply(null, arr)`.
* `decoderJs(buffer)`: A custom JavaScript function that manually decodes the byte array using a combination of bitwise operations and conditional statements.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

* `decodeNative(arr)`:
	+ Pros: Fast, low-level implementation, optimized for browser performance.
	+ Cons: May have compatibility issues with older browsers or non-standard implementations.
* `decodeCharCode(arr)`:
	+ Pros: Manual, string-based approach can be easily understood and maintained.
	+ Cons: Slower than the built-in `TextDecoder` API, may require more memory access patterns.
* `decoderJs(buffer)`:
	+ Pros: Customizable, can be optimized for specific use cases or performance requirements.
	+ Cons: Requires manual implementation of decoding logic, may have compatibility issues with older browsers.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark assumes that the input byte array is a valid UTF-8 encoded string. In practice, this may not always be the case, and additional error handling may be necessary.
* The `TextDecoder` API has some limitations, such as requiring a single-byte or multi-byte sequence to complete decoding. If the input byte array contains incomplete sequences, this may impact performance.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for decoding UTF-8 encoded byte arrays include:

* Using a library like `utf-8 decode` from the Node.js `util` module.
* Implementing a custom decoder using a different language or framework (e.g., C++, Python).
* Using a third-party library that provides optimized, browser-agnostic UTF-8 decoding implementations.

TextDecoder vs Js (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `decodeNative vs decodeCharCode vs decoderJs`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

decodeNative

decodeCharCode

decoderJs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

TextDecoder vs Js (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: decodeNative vs decodeCharCode vs decoderJs

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

decodeNative

decodeCharCode

decoderJs

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: `decodeNative vs decodeCharCode vs decoderJs`