Benchmark: zlib compatible compression libraries comparison - pako vs fflate

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://unpkg.com/fflate"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/pako/2.1.0/pako.es5.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

const 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.deflate(a)
var cb = pako.deflate(b)

Tests:

zip pako a
pako.deflate(a)
zip fflate a
fflate.zlibSync(a)
zip pako b
pako.deflate(b)
zip fflate b
fflate.zlibSync(b)
unzip pako a
pako.inflate(ca);
unzip fflate a
fflate.unzlibSync(ca);
unzip pako b
pako.inflate(cb)
unzip fflate b
fflate.unzlibSync(cb)

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 16 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 16 runs

unzip pako b

66K/s

zip fflate b

28K/s

unzip fflate b

11K/s

zip pako b

10K/s

unzip fflate a

329/s

unzip pako a

280/s

zip pako a

83/s

zip fflate a

83/s

Fastest: unzip pako b (799.4x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ unzip pako b: 66,451 ops/sec
• zip fflate b: 28,013 ops/sec
• unzip fflate b: 11,020 ops/sec
• zip pako b: 10,318 ops/sec
• unzip fflate a: 329 ops/sec
• unzip pako a: 280 ops/sec
• zip pako a: 83 ops/sec
• zip fflate a: 83 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

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 17_6_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) CriOS/137.0.7151.51 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile iOS 137 on iOS 17.6.1

View result in a separate tab

zip fflate b

79K/s

unzip pako b

72K/s

zip pako b

24K/s

unzip fflate b

17K/s

unzip pako a

607/s

zip pako a

219/s

unzip fflate a

129/s

zip fflate a

96/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ zip fflate b	79,395 Ops/sec
unzip pako b	72,281 Ops/sec
zip pako b	24,267 Ops/sec
unzip fflate b	17,289 Ops/sec
unzip pako a	607 Ops/sec
zip pako a	219 Ops/sec
unzip fflate a	129 Ops/sec
zip fflate a	96 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 benchmark and its results.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two JavaScript libraries: pako and fflate, which are implementations of zlib-compatible compression algorithms. The goal is to measure the performance of each library in terms of compression and decompression speeds.

**Options Being Compared**

There are four options being compared:

1. `pako.deflate(a)` vs `fflate.zlibSync(a)`: This comparison tests the compression speed of each library on a large dataset (`a`).
2. `pako.deflate(b)` vs `fflate.zlibSync(b)`: This comparison tests the compression speed of each library on another large dataset (`b`).
3. `pako.inflate(ca)` vs `fflate.unzlibSync(ca)`: This comparison tests the decompression speed of each library on a compressed dataset (`ca`).
4. `pako.inflate(cb)` vs `fflate.unzlibSync(cb)`: This comparison tests the decompression speed of each library on another compressed dataset (`cb`).

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **pako.deflate(a)**:
	* Pros: pako is a lightweight, well-maintained library with good performance.
	* Cons: may not be as efficient as fflate for very large datasets.
2. **fflate.zlibSync(a)**:
	* Pros: fflate is highly optimized for performance and has good support for modern browsers.
	* Cons: may have higher memory usage due to its larger size.
3. **pako.deflate(b)**:
	* Pros: similar to pako.deflate(a), but tests a different dataset, which may provide more representative results.
	* Cons: same limitations as pako.deflate(a).
4. **fflate.zlibSync(b)**:
	* Pros: similar to fflate.zlibSync(a), but tests a different dataset.
	* Cons: same limitations as fflate.zlibSync(a).

**Libraries**

1. **pako**: A lightweight, JavaScript implementation of the pako algorithm, which is a zlib-compatible compression algorithm. It's designed for small to medium-sized datasets.
2. **fflate**: A highly optimized, JavaScript implementation of the flate algorithm, which is also a zlib-compatible compression algorithm. It's designed for large datasets and has good support for modern browsers.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require specific knowledge to understand.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative libraries, here are a few options:

1. **zlib**: The original zlib library is written in C and has good performance, but it's not JavaScript-compatible.
2. **jszip**: A lightweight JavaScript library that provides zip compression and decompression capabilities.
3. **lz-string**: Another lightweight JavaScript library for compressing strings using the LZ-77 algorithm.

Keep in mind that each library has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of which one to use depends on your specific use case and requirements.

zlib compatible compression libraries comparison - pako vs fflate (version: 0) Benchmark.js

comparing zlib compatible compression and decompression of pako with fflate

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

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

zip pako a

zip fflate a

zip pako b

zip fflate b

unzip pako a

unzip fflate a

unzip pako b

unzip fflate b

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 16 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 16 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

zlib compatible compression libraries comparison - pako vs fflate (version: 0) Benchmark.js

comparing zlib compatible compression and decompression of pako with fflate

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

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

zip pako a

zip fflate a

zip pako b

zip fflate b

unzip pako a

unzip fflate a

unzip pako b

unzip fflate b

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 16 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 16 runs

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: `zip pako a vs zip fflate a vs zip pako b vs zip fflate b vs unzip pako a vs unzip fflate a vs unzip pako b vs unzip fflate b`