Benchmark: cache vs live - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<canvas id="canvas" width="16" height="16"></canvas>

Script Preparation code:

var canvas = document.getElementById('canvas');
var ctx = canvas.getContext("2d");

var cacheG = document.createElement('canvas');
var cacheD = cacheG.getContext('2d');

cacheG.width = 12;
cacheG.height = 12;

cacheD.beginPath();
cacheD.fillStyle = '#000';
cacheD.arc(6, 6, 6, 0, Math.PI * 2, true);
cacheD.fill();

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 break down the benchmark and its test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: caching and using live graphics data in JavaScript. The test case uses HTML5 canvas element for rendering.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates a new canvas element (`cacheG`) and gets its 2D drawing context (`cacheD`). It then sets the dimensions, background color, and draws a circle on the cache canvas. This step is done to create a cached representation of the graphics data that will be used later.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code creates a new canvas element with an ID `canvas` and sets its width and height attributes. This ensures that the test case uses the same HTML setup for both caching and live approaches.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Cache Test**
```javascript
ctx.drawImage(cacheG, 6, 6);
```
This test case draws the cached canvas (`cacheG`) at position (6, 6) on the main canvas using `drawImage()` method.

2. **Live Test**
```javascript
ctx.beginPath();
ctx.fillStyle = '#000';
ctx.arc(12, 12, 6, 0, Math.PI * 2, true);
ctx.fill();
```
This test case draws a circle directly on the main canvas from scratch using `beginPath()`, setting fill style to black, and drawing the circle. This approach does not use caching.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing two options:

* **Cache**: Using the cached representation of graphics data (created in script preparation code) for rendering.
* **Live**: Drawing graphics data directly from scratch on the main canvas without using caching.

**Pros and Cons**

**Cache Approach:**

Pros:

* Can be faster since graphics data is already prepared
* Reduces computational overhead

Cons:

* Requires extra memory to store cached graphics data
* May lead to slower rendering if too many frames are stored in cache

**Live Approach:**

Pros:

* Does not require extra memory for caching
* Can render more dynamically (e.g., with animation)

Cons:

* May be slower due to computational overhead of re-calculating graphics data on each frame
* May lead to increased CPU usage

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also considers the following factors:

* Browser and device platform
* Operating system (Windows 7 in this case)
* Number of executions per second (higher values indicate better performance)

**Library/External Dependency**

There is no external library explicitly used in these test cases. The canvas element is a built-in HTML5 feature.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark does not rely on any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard canvas API.

Now, if you're wondering about alternative approaches, here are some other options that could be considered:

* Using WebGPU or WebGL for accelerated graphics rendering
* Implementing caching using a library like LRU Cache
* Utilizing asynchronous rendering techniques to reduce computational overhead
* Considering GPU-accelerated processing of graphics data

However, these alternatives may require more complex setup and might not directly compare the performance difference between caching and live approaches.

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):