Benchmark: decoding with JSON.decode and atob

Script Preparation code:

var encoded = [];
var decoded = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
  decoded.push({"supports":{"moduleMove":true,"moduleDuplicate":true,"moduleDelete":true,"imageResize":true,"imageAlign":true,"imageCaption":true,"imageFullWidth":false},"fitsInContent":true,"alias":null,"isInSectionLoop":false,"imageId":Math.round(Math.random() * 10000),"imageAnimated":false,"imagePosition":1,"imageFit":true,"caption":"","link":"","linkTarget":"","imageAlt":"","linkTitle":"","iiePayload":{"zoom":2.0286,"cropXRatio":1,"cropYRatio":1,"version":1},"imageWidth":900,"imageHeight":382,"imageUrl":"https:\/\/diydev-shard01-cms.petsi.lan\/webseitendaten\/656\/563\/460\/images\/cache\/98.jpg?t=1475494410","origImageUrl":"https:\/\/diydev-shard01-cms.petsi.lan\/webseitendaten\/656\/563\/460\/images\/upload\/98.jpg?t=1475494410","origImageWidth":1600,"origImageHeight":1065,"transformedImageUrl":null,"transformedImageWidth":null,"transformedImageHeight":null,"imageMediaType":"JPEG","teaserboxWidth":900,"teaserboxHeight":700,"isFullwidth":false});
  encoded.push(btoa(JSON.stringify(decoded[i])));
}

Tests:

decoding
for (var j = 0; j < encoded.length; j++) { console.log(JSON.parse(atob(encoded[j]))); }
no decoding
for (var k = 0; k < decoded.length; k++) { console.log(decoded[k]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
decoding
no decoding

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
decoding	121.9 Ops/sec
no decoding	294.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases:

1. **"decoding"`**: This test case is testing how long it takes to decode a base64-encoded string using `atob` (base64 decoding function) and then parse the resulting string with `JSON.parse`.
2. **"no decoding"`**: This test case is testing how long it takes to simply log the `decoded` array, without any decoding or parsing.

**Comparison**

The two test cases are being compared in terms of their execution times:

* "decoding": measures the time taken to decode a base64-encoded string and parse the resulting JSON object.
* "no decoding": measures the time taken to simply log the `decoded` array (without decoding or parsing).

**Options Compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **Decoding using `atob` followed by parsing with `JSON.parse`**: This approach involves first encoding the `decoded` array as a base64 string using `btoa`, and then decoding it back to a JSON object using `atob`.
2. **Not decoding or parsing the data**: In this case, the `decoded` array is simply logged without any further processing.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Decoding using `atob` followed by parsing with `JSON.parse`**:
	* Pros: This approach ensures that the decoded string is in a format that can be easily used by JavaScript, as it's already in JSON format.
	* Cons: This approach introduces extra processing steps, which may increase execution time due to additional function calls and data conversions.
2. **Not decoding or parsing the data**:
	* Pros: This approach avoids introducing additional processing steps, which means shorter execution times for this specific test case.
	* Cons: The resulting `decoded` array is not in a format that can be easily used by JavaScript, as it's still in a binary format.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

In both test cases, the `JSON.parse()` function from the built-in `JSON` object library is used to parse JSON data. There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare alternative approaches for decoding base64-encoded strings, some options could be:

* Using a custom base64 decoding implementation instead of `atob`.
* Using a different decoding algorithm, such as binary-safe string encoding.
* Comparing the performance of using `JSON.stringify()` and then parsing with `atob`, versus simply logging the decoded data.

However, for this specific benchmark, the main focus is on comparing the execution times of two approaches: decoding using `atob` followed by parsing with `JSON.parse`, versus not decoding or parsing the data.

Related benchmarks:

decoding with JSON.decode and atob (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: decoding vs no decoding

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

decoding

no decoding

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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