Benchmark: path2d-vs-math - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var boundingRect = { x: 10, y: 10, width: 100, height: 50 };
var x = 20;
var y = 20;

const canvas = document.createElement('canvas');
const ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');
const rectanglePath2D = new Path2D();
rectanglePath2D.rect(boundingRect.x, boundingRect.y, boundingRect.width, boundingRect.height);
function calculateViaPath2d() {
  return ctx.isPointInPath(rectanglePath2D, x, y);
}

const maxX = boundingRect.x + boundingRect.width;
const maxY = boundingRect.y + boundingRect.height;
function calculateViaMath() {
  return (boundingRect.x <= x) && (x <= maxX) && (boundingRect.y <= y) && (x <= maxY)
}

Tests:

path2d
calculateViaPath2d()
math
calculateViaMath()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
path2d
math

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 23 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:137.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/137.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 137 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
path2d	19714002.0 Ops/sec
math	337511296.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated 7 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark compares two ways to check if a point (x, y) is inside a rectangle defined by `boundingRect`.

**Options Compared:**

1. **`calculateViaPath2d()`**: This method uses the Canvas API's `Path2D` object to define the rectangle and then calls `ctx.isPointInPath(path, x, y)` to check if the point is within the path.
2. **`calculateViaMath()`**: This method directly checks if the point's coordinates fall within the rectangle's boundaries using simple mathematical comparisons.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **`calculateViaPath2d()`**:  
    * **Pros:** Potentially more efficient as it utilizes optimized vector operations within the Canvas API.
    * **Cons:** Requires creating a `Path2D` object, which involves some overhead compared to simple math.
* **`calculateViaMath()`**: 
    * **Pros:** Simpler and more straightforward implementation. Less memory allocation is involved.
    * **Cons:** Might be slightly slower than using the optimized `Path2D` approach for complex shapes or large numbers of points.

**Other Considerations:**

* **Context:** The choice between these methods depends on the specific use case. If you're dealing with simple rectangles, the mathematical approach is likely sufficient. 
* **Performance:** For highly performance-critical applications involving complex shapes and many points, benchmarking both approaches and choosing the fastest one for your scenario is crucial.

**Alternatives:**

* **Third-party libraries**:  There might be specialized JavaScript libraries designed for geometric operations that offer optimized solutions for checking point containment within various shapes. Explore options like `geolib` or `turfjs`.

Let me know if you have any further questions!

Related benchmarks:

path2d-vs-math (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: path2d vs math

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

path2d

math

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated 7 months ago):