Benchmark: Setting Canvas Pixel (Larger Test Size)

HTML Preparation code:

<canvas id="c" width="800" height="300"></canvas>

Script Preparation code:

$c = document.getElementById('c');
$ctx = $c.getContext('2d');
$ctx.clearRect(0, 0, 800, 300);
$px = $ctx.createImageData(1, 1);
$pxls = [];
for (var i=0; i<10000; ++i) $pxls.push({
   x: Math.random() * 800 << 0,
   y: Math.random() * 300 << 0,
   r: Math.random() * 255 << 0,
   g: Math.random() * 255 << 0,
   b: Math.random() * 255 << 0,
   a: Math.random() * 128 << 0 + 128
});
$i = 0;

Tests:

fillRect/concat
for (var i=250000;i--;){ var px = $pxls[$i++ % 10000]; $ctx.fillStyle = 'rgba(' + px.r + ',' + px.g + ',' + px.b + ',' + (px.a / 255) + ')'; $ctx.fillRect(px.x, px.y, 1, 1); }
fillRect/join
for (var i=250000;i--;){ var px = $pxls[$i++ % 10000]; $ctx.fillStyle = 'rgba(' + [px.r,px.g,px.b,px.a/255].join() + ')'; $ctx.fillRect(px.x, px.y, 1, 1); }
1×1 Image Data
for (var i=250000;i--;){ var px=$pxls[$i++ % 10000], d=$px.data; d[0] = px.r; d[1] = px.g; d[2] = px.b; d[3] = px.a; $ctx.putImageData($px, px.x, px.y); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
fillRect/concat
fillRect/join
1×1 Image Data

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/123.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
fillRect/concat	2.2 Ops/sec
fillRect/join	2.2 Ops/sec
1×1 Image Data	0.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is an essential task for any developer, and MeasuringThat.net is a great platform to do so.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark tests the rendering of 10,000 small images on a canvas element using three different approaches: `fillRect` with concatenated string values, `fillRect` with array values, and using `putImageData`. The goal is to determine which approach is the most efficient in terms of performance.

**Options Compared**

The three options compared are:

1. **`fillRect/concat`**: This option uses a concatenated string to construct the `rgba` color value for each pixel. This involves concatenating four values: red, green, blue, and alpha.
2. **`fillRect/join`**: This option uses an array to store the color values and then joins them using the `join()` method to create the `rgba` string.
3. **`1×1 Image Data`**: This option uses a 1x1 image data object to render each pixel, which is expected to be more efficient than the other two options.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`fillRect/concat`**:
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward.
	* Cons: Concatenating strings can lead to slower performance due to string creation and concatenation overhead.
2. **`fillRect/join`**:
	* Pros: More efficient than `concat`, as it avoids creating temporary strings.
	* Cons: Requires an array to store the color values, which may not be desirable for large datasets.
3. **`1×1 Image Data`**:
	* Pros: Expected to be the most efficient approach, as it uses a pre-allocated image data object to render each pixel.
	* Cons: May require more memory allocation and deallocation, depending on the browser's implementation.

**Library Used**

None of the provided benchmark definitions explicitly use any external libraries. However, they do rely on the HTML5 canvas element and its APIs.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The `join()` method is used in the `fillRect/join` option to concatenate array elements into a string. This is a built-in JavaScript method that joins an array of values with a specified separator (in this case, no separator).

**Other Considerations**

When measuring performance in JavaScript, it's essential to consider factors like:

* Browser versions and engine optimizations
* Canvas element size and resolution
* Pixel density and color depth
* Memory allocation and deallocation

Keep in mind that these factors can significantly impact the benchmark results. MeasuringThat.net provides a controlled environment for comparing different approaches, but real-world scenarios may introduce additional variables to consider.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative performance optimization techniques or testing other JavaScript benchmarks, here are some suggestions:

1. **JSPerf**: A popular online tool for measuring JavaScript performance.
2. **Benchmark.js**: A library for creating and running JavaScript benchmarks.
3. **WebAssembly Performance**: Measuring the performance of WebAssembly-enabled browsers.

These alternatives can help you explore different aspects of JavaScript performance optimization or test other scenarios that may not be covered by MeasuringThat.net.

Related benchmarks:

Setting Canvas Pixel (Larger Test Size) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: fillRect/concat vs fillRect/join vs 1×1 Image Data

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

fillRect/concat

fillRect/join

1×1 Image Data

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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