Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UBlock Origin 1.17.4 released

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 158 posts

Re: UBlock Origin 1.17.4 released

#4

Post by hornetblack »

adonese wrote: post #3
vtesucks wrote: post #2

Are there benchmarks where the wasm engine of a browser beats the Js engine of the same browser in compute heavy code?

they attached a benchmark, https://raw.githack.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/docs/tests/hns...

Results on mine:

    Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better.
    Firefox 63.0 on Windows 10 64-bit.

    Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames
      -                 Set-based x 1,443 ops/sec ±3.46% (54 runs sampled)
      -               Regex-based x 4,093 ops/sec ±1.18% (25 runs sampled)
      -      Trie-based (1st-gen) x 8,993 ops/sec ±1.92% (59 runs sampled)
      -   Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 7,923 ops/sec ±2.81% (44 runs sampled)
      - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x 10,100 ops/sec ±1.75% (54 runs sampled)
    Done.

Re: UBlock Origin 1.17.4 released

#5

Post by tpush »

I wish gorhill would make a Safari content-blocker version of ublock. None of the existing blockers (who mostly just package existing block lists and charge money for it..) work as well as uBlock IME.

Re: UBlock Origin 1.17.4 released

#6

Post by radicaldreamer »

tpush wrote: post #5

I wish gorhill would make a Safari content-blocker version of ublock. None of the existing blockers (who mostly just package existing block lists and charge money for it..) work as well as uBlock IME.

There's a fantastic fork/port available: https://safari-extensions.apple.com/details/?id=com.el1t.uBl...

It's not a content-blocker version, but it's a port of Chrome version.

Re: UBlock Origin 1.17.4 released

#7

Post by pietroglyph »

hornetblack wrote: post #4
adonese wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they attached a benchmark, https://raw.githack.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/docs/tests/hns...

Results on mine: Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Firefox 63.0 on Windows 10 64-bit. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 1,443 ops/sec ±3.46% (54 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 4,093 ops/sec ±1.18% (25 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 8,993 ops/sec ±1.92% (59 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 7,923 ops/sec ±2.81% (44 runs sampled) - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x…

Interestingly, my numbers are completely different relative to each other when compared with yours... I wonder how the number of runs is determined and if this affects the results.

  Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better.
  Firefox 63.0 on Fedora 64-bit.
  
  Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames
    -                 Set-based x 1,707 ops/sec ±1.93% (60 runs sampled)
    -               Regex-based x 4,078 ops/sec ±0.88% (25 runs sampled)
    -      Trie-based (1st-gen) x 10,038 ops/sec ±1.41% (64 runs sampled)
    -   Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 7,258 ops/sec ±1.03% (40 runs sampled)
    - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x 8,033 ops/sec ±1.08% (44 runs sampled)
  Done.

Re: UBlock Origin 1.17.4 released

#8

Post by DiabloD3 »

pietroglyph wrote: post #7
hornetblack wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Results on mine: Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Firefox 63.0 on Windows 10 64-bit. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 1,443 ops/sec ±3.46% (54 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 4,093 ops/sec ±1.18% (25 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 8,993 ops/sec ±1.92% (59 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 7,923 ops/sec ±2.81% (44 runs sampled) - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x…

Interestingly, my numbers are completely different relative to each other when compared with yours... I wonder how the number of runs is determined and if this affects the results. Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Firefox 63.0 on Fedora 64-bit. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 1,707 ops/sec ±1.93% (60 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 4,078 ops/sec ±0.88% (25 runs sampled) -…

  Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better.
  Firefox 65.0 on Windows 10 64-bit.

  Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames
  -            Set-based x 1,647 ops/sec ±2.23% (13 runs sampled)
  -          Regex-based x 1,178 ops/sec ±4.95% (48 runs sampled)
  -                 Set-based x 1,854 ops/sec ±1.94% (59 runs sampled)
  - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 275 ops/sec ±4.61% (56 runs sampled)
  -               Regex-based x 2,947 ops/sec ±2.32% (61 runs sampled)
  - Trie-based (2nd-gen) x 671 ops/sec ±2.60% (47 runs sampled)
  Done.

  -      Trie-based (1st-gen) x 9,311 ops/sec ±1.61% (51 runs sampled)
  -   Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 7,121 ops/sec ±1.28% (40 runs sampled)
  - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x 7,983 ops/sec ±2.44% (63 runs sampled)
  Done.
And mine seems to look different than yours, but similarly lopsided.

Re: UBlock Origin 1.17.4 released

#9

Post by Nullabillity »

pietroglyph wrote: post #7
hornetblack wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Results on mine: Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Firefox 63.0 on Windows 10 64-bit. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 1,443 ops/sec ±3.46% (54 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 4,093 ops/sec ±1.18% (25 runs sampled) - Trie-based (1st-gen) x 8,993 ops/sec ±1.92% (59 runs sampled) - Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 7,923 ops/sec ±2.81% (44 runs sampled) - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x…

Interestingly, my numbers are completely different relative to each other when compared with yours... I wonder how the number of runs is determined and if this affects the results. Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better. Firefox 63.0 on Fedora 64-bit. Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames - Set-based x 1,707 ops/sec ±1.93% (60 runs sampled) - Regex-based x 4,078 ops/sec ±0.88% (25 runs sampled) -…

That's what I got too:

    Benchmarking, the higher ops/sec the better.
    Firefox 63.0 on Linux 64-bit.

    Test 100 needles against 16 dictionaries of hostnames
      -                 Set-based x 1,992 ops/sec ±0.71% (15 runs sampled)
      -               Regex-based x 5,148 ops/sec ±0.18% (30 runs sampled)
      -      Trie-based (1st-gen) x 11,797 ops/sec ±0.49% (63 runs sampled)
      -   Trie-based JS (2nd-gen) x 8,471 ops/sec ±0.50% (47 runs sampled)
      - Trie-based WASM (2nd-gen) x 9,543 ops/sec ±0.48% (52 runs sampled)
    Done.
I don't see why trie matching performance would depend on the host OS... Unless WASM runs out of process and requires some form of IPC, I guess?

Re: UBlock Origin 1.17.4 released

#10

Post by WeAreGoingIn »

The first plugin I install on a freshly installed system with Firefox is uBO. After that I harden the browser by changing stuff in about:config.

Chrome has never been an option for us with privacy in focus.

The guys behind uBO should get some price or something.

Post reply on HN