Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
cache vs live
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
cache vs live
Created:
8 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<canvas id="canvas" width="400" height="400"></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 * 1, true); cacheD.arc(3, 9, 9, 0, Math.PI * 0.4, true); cacheD.arc(4, 2, 10, 0, Math.PI * 0.9, true); cacheD.arc(5, 1, 7, 0, Math.PI * 0.3, true); cacheD.fill();
Tests:
cache
ctx.drawImage(cacheG, 6, 6);
live
ctx.beginPath(); ctx.fillStyle = '#000'; ctx.arc(6, 6, 6, 0, Math.PI * 1, true); ctx.arc(3, 9, 9, 0, Math.PI * 0.4, true); ctx.arc(4, 2, 10, 0, Math.PI * 0.9, true); ctx.arc(5, 1, 7, 0, Math.PI * 0.3, true); ctx.fill();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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):
Let's dive into the benchmark definition and test cases. **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches: caching and drawing from the live canvas. **Options Compared** Two options are compared: 1. **Caching**: This approach stores a copy of the canvas element in memory (using `document.createElement` and `getContext`) and then draws on this cached context (`ctx.drawImage(cacheG, 6, 6)`). 2. **Live Drawing**: This approach draws directly onto the live canvas using its context (`ctx.beginPath()` followed by multiple `arc` and `fill` methods). **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** **Caching:** Pros: * Can be faster because it avoids repeated calls to `getContext` * May reduce memory allocation Cons: * Requires extra memory allocation for the cached canvas element * May introduce additional overhead due to context switching between the live and cached contexts **Live Drawing:** Pros: * No additional memory allocation required * Simple and straightforward approach Cons: * Can be slower because it requires repeated calls to `getContext` on each execution * May require more memory allocation for temporary objects (e.g., arrays, objects) **Other Considerations** The benchmark also considers the following factors: * The device platform: Chrome OS 15117.86.0 * The browser version: Chrome 107 * The operating system: Chrome OS 15117.86.0 **Libraries and Special JavaScript Features** In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, note that the `Canvas` API is a built-in feature of modern browsers. No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these test cases. **Alternative Approaches** If you want to explore alternative approaches, consider the following: * Using WebGL: This can provide significant performance benefits for graphics-intensive workloads. * Using Web Workers: These allow you to run tasks in parallel, which can improve performance on multi-core processors. * Using Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation: Some frameworks and libraries offer JIT compilation, which can provide improved performance by compiling JavaScript code into native machine code. For this specific benchmark, the choice between caching and live drawing likely depends on the desired balance between performance and simplicity. If you prioritize speed, using caching might be a better option. However, if you prefer a simpler approach with minimal memory overhead, live drawing might be sufficient.
Related benchmarks:
cache vs live
drawing cached vs live
cache vs live
cache vs live
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?