@@ -700,45 +700,45 @@ The package includes a benchmark that compares protobuf.js performance to native
700
700
```
701
701
benchmarking encoding performance ...
702
702
703
- protobuf.js (reflect) x 547,366 ops/sec ±1.29 % (90 runs sampled)
704
- protobuf.js (static) x 525,722 ops/sec ±1.17 % (91 runs sampled)
705
- JSON (string) x 311,180 ops/sec ±0.67 % (93 runs sampled)
706
- JSON (buffer) x 183,724 ops/sec ±0.69 % (92 runs sampled)
707
- google-protobuf x 76,337 ops/sec ±0.73 % (91 runs sampled)
703
+ protobuf.js (reflect) x 540,622 ops/sec ±0.87 % (89 runs sampled)
704
+ protobuf.js (static) x 537,928 ops/sec ±1.19 % (91 runs sampled)
705
+ JSON (string) x 317,124 ops/sec ±0.63 % (91 runs sampled)
706
+ JSON (buffer) x 185,945 ops/sec ±0.72 % (89 runs sampled)
707
+ google-protobuf x 76,552 ops/sec ±0.85 % (91 runs sampled)
708
708
709
709
protobuf.js (reflect) was fastest
710
- protobuf.js (static) was 3. 8% slower
711
- JSON (string) was 42.8% slower
712
- JSON (buffer) was 66.2% slower
713
- google-protobuf was 86.0% slower
710
+ protobuf.js (static) was 0.01 times slower (-0. 8% ops/sec)
711
+ JSON (string) was 0.70 times slower (-41.2% ops/sec)
712
+ JSON (buffer) was 1.90 times slower (-65.6% ops/sec)
713
+ google-protobuf was 6.06 times slower (-85.8% ops/sec)
714
714
715
715
benchmarking decoding performance ...
716
716
717
- protobuf.js (reflect) x 1,401,958 ops/sec ±0.78 % (93 runs sampled)
718
- protobuf.js (static) x 1,391,017 ops/sec ±0.78 % (90 runs sampled)
719
- JSON (string) x 301,749 ops/sec ±0.88% (93 runs sampled)
720
- JSON (buffer) x 268,792 ops/sec ±0.84 % (90 runs sampled)
721
- google-protobuf x 186,727 ops/sec ±0.81 % (90 runs sampled)
717
+ protobuf.js (reflect) x 1,386,221 ops/sec ±0.95 % (93 runs sampled)
718
+ protobuf.js (static) x 1,397,599 ops/sec ±0.74 % (91 runs sampled)
719
+ JSON (string) x 300,667 ops/sec ±0.88% (90 runs sampled)
720
+ JSON (buffer) x 265,276 ops/sec ±0.88 % (90 runs sampled)
721
+ google-protobuf x 162,202 ops/sec ±0.85 % (92 runs sampled)
722
722
723
- protobuf.js (reflect ) was fastest
724
- protobuf.js (static ) was 0.8% slower
725
- JSON (string) was 78.5% slower
726
- JSON (buffer) was 80.8% slower
727
- google-protobuf was 86.7% slower
723
+ protobuf.js (static ) was fastest
724
+ protobuf.js (reflect ) was 0.01 times slower (-1.0% ops/sec)
725
+ JSON (string) was 3.65 times slower (- 78.5% ops/sec)
726
+ JSON (buffer) was 4.28 times slower (-81.0% ops/sec)
727
+ google-protobuf was 7.63 times slower (-88.4% ops/sec)
728
728
729
729
benchmarking combined performance ...
730
730
731
- protobuf.js (reflect) x 274,685 ops/sec ±0.99 % (89 runs sampled)
732
- protobuf.js (static) x 278,352 ops/sec ±1.00 % (90 runs sampled)
733
- JSON (string) x 129,638 ops/sec ±0.83 % (91 runs sampled)
734
- JSON (buffer) x 90,904 ops/sec ±0.93 % (87 runs sampled)
735
- google-protobuf x 43,327 ops/sec ±0.89 % (90 runs sampled)
731
+ protobuf.js (reflect) x 277,238 ops/sec ±0.95 % (92 runs sampled)
732
+ protobuf.js (static) x 281,732 ops/sec ±0.91 % (91 runs sampled)
733
+ JSON (string) x 128,615 ops/sec ±1.01 % (88 runs sampled)
734
+ JSON (buffer) x 89,794 ops/sec ±1.28 % (88 runs sampled)
735
+ google-protobuf x 40,987 ops/sec ±1.29 % (90 runs sampled)
736
736
737
737
protobuf.js (static) was fastest
738
- protobuf.js (reflect) was 1.3% slower
739
- JSON (string) was 53.3% slower
740
- JSON (buffer) was 67.3% slower
741
- google-protobuf was 84.4% slower
738
+ protobuf.js (reflect) was 0.02 times slower (-1.6% ops/sec)
739
+ JSON (string) was 1.19 times slower (-54.4% ops/sec)
740
+ JSON (buffer) was 2.15 times slower (-68.2% ops/sec)
741
+ google-protobuf was 5.90 times slower (-85.5% ops/sec)
742
742
```
743
743
744
744
You can also run [ the benchmark] ( https://github.com/dcodeIO/protobuf.js/blob/master/bench/index.js ) ...
0 commit comments