|
|
|
|
|
|
by cornstalks
1644 days ago
|
|
|
I want to say this looks interesting but it's so sparse on details it's hard to say. What modifications were made to base64? Is the only modification replacing "+" with "."? Is the rest of the table[1] unchanged? Can it be extended to only use URL-safe characters (like base64url)? How does this compare to other popular/optimized implementations of standard base64? What are its performance characteristics on different sizes of inputs? I've never had to decode 100 MB of base64 data, but I have had to decode a ton of 64-bit base64 strings, for example. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64#Base64_table |
|
|
The rest is unchanged, but there is a trick in that the table indexes are shuffled, and shuffled differently depending on the neighboring values in a 24-bit block of source data.
> but I have had to decode a ton of 64-bit base64 strings, for example
Should be good for small data. It's a pity that no one (or I haven't seen such benchmarks) measures the performance of decoding a large amount of small data (like 1..64 bytes).