Julius Davies created CODEC-166:
-----------------------------------
Summary: Base64 could be faster
Key: CODEC-166
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CODEC-166
Project: Commons Codec
Issue Type: Bug
Affects Versions: 1.7
Reporter: Julius Davies
Assignee: Julius Davies
Fix For: 1.8
Our Base64 consistently performs 3 times slower compared to MiGBase64 and
iHarder in the byte[] and String encode() methods.
We are pretty good on decode(), though a little slower (approx. 33% slower)
than MiGBase64.
We always win in the Streaming methods (MiGBase64 doesn't do streaming). Yay!
:-) :-) :-)
I put together a benchmark. Here's a typical run:
{noformat}
LARGE DATA new byte[12345]
iHarder...
encode 486.0 MB/s decode 158.0 MB/s
encode 491.0 MB/s decode 148.0 MB/s
MiGBase64...
encode 499.0 MB/s decode 222.0 MB/s
encode 493.0 MB/s decode 226.0 MB/s
Apache Commons Codec...
encode 142.0 MB/s decode 146.0 MB/s
encode 138.0 MB/s decode 150.0 MB/s
{noformat}
I believe the main approach we can consider to improve performance is to avoid
array copies at all costs. MiGBase64 even counts the number of valid Base64
characters ahead of time on decode() to precalculate the result's size and
avoid any array copying!
I suspect this will mean writing out separate execution paths for the String
and byte[] methods, and keeping them out of the streaming logic, since the
streaming logic is founded on array copy.
Unfortunately this means we will diminish internal reuse of the streaming
implementation, but I think it's the only way to improve performance, if we
want to.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
