Benchmark: cache vs live - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<canvas id="canvas" width="400" height="400"></canvas>

Script Preparation code:

var canvas = document.getElementById('canvas');
var ctx = canvas.getContext("2d");

ctx.beginPath();
ctx.fillStyle = '#000';
ctx.arc(6, 6, 6, 0, Math.PI * 2, true);
ctx.fill();

var cache = ctx.getImageData(0, 0, canvas.width, canvas.height);

Tests:

cache
ctx.drawImage(cacheG, 6, 6);
live
ctx.beginPath(); ctx.fillStyle = '#000'; ctx.arc(12, 12, 6, 0, Math.PI * 2, true); ctx.fill();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
cache
live

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that tests two different approaches to rendering a canvas image: using cached data (i.e., "cache") versus drawing the image directly from scratch every time (i.e., "live"). The benchmark measures the performance difference between these two approaches.

**Options compared:**

There are only two options being compared:

1. **Cache**: This approach uses `getImageData()` to store a cached representation of the canvas image, which is then reused for subsequent drawings.
2. **Live**: This approach draws the entire image from scratch every time using `beginPath()`, `arc()`, and `fill()`.

**Pros and Cons:**

**Cache:**

Pros:

* Can improve performance by avoiding redundant calculations and repeated drawing operations.
* May reduce memory usage, as only a single cached representation of the image is stored.

Cons:

* Requires an initial calculation to create the cached data, which can be time-consuming for complex images.
* Cache invalidation may become necessary when the canvas dimensions change, but this is not explicitly tested in this benchmark.

**Live:**

Pros:

* No additional memory or computation required beyond the initial drawing operation.
* Does not depend on cache validity.

Cons:

* Can lead to significant performance degradation due to repeated calculations and draw operations for the same image.

Other considerations:

* Both approaches assume that the canvas dimensions remain constant throughout the benchmarking process. If the dimensions change, a more sophisticated approach might be needed to handle cache invalidation.
* This benchmark does not account for any potential issues related to concurrent access to the shared canvas resources or thread safety concerns.

**Library:**

The `getImageData()` function is part of the HTML5 Canvas API, which allows developers to capture and manipulate pixel data from the canvas element. In this case, it's used to cache the initial rendering result.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax that require specific knowledge or attention in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were to design a similar benchmark, other approaches could include:

* Using Web Workers or WebAssembly for concurrent and out-of-process execution.
* Implementing optimized caching strategies, such as using a more efficient data structure or leveraging existing cache mechanisms like Service Workers.
* Adding additional factors that affect performance, such as varying canvas sizes, shapes, or colors.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require modifications to the benchmark definition and code.

Related benchmarks:

cache vs live (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: cache vs live

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

cache

live

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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