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: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:139.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/139.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 139 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
path2d	10664353.0 Ops/sec
math	144630512.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the details of this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two different approaches to determine whether a point (x, y) is inside a rectangle with coordinates (10, 10, width: 100, height: 50). The two methods are:

1. **Path2D**: This approach uses the HTML5 Canvas API's `Path2D` class to create a path representing the rectangle. It then uses the `isPointInPath()` method of the canvas context (`ctx`) to check if the point (x, y) is inside this path.
2. **Math**: This approach simply checks whether the point (x, y) falls within the rectangle's bounds using basic arithmetic operations: `(boundingRect.x <= x) && (x <= boundingRect.x + boundingRect.width) && (boundingRect.y <= y) && (y <= boundingRect.y + boundingRect.height)`.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Path2D**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can handle complex shapes, not just rectangles.
		+ Leverages the canvas API's vector graphics capabilities.
	* Cons:
		- May be slower due to the overhead of creating a path object and calling `isPointInPath()`.
		- Might be overkill for simple cases like this rectangle check.
2. **Math**:
	* Pros:
		+ Extremely fast, as it only involves basic arithmetic operations.
		+ Simple to implement.
	* Cons:
		- Only suitable for rectangles (or other simple shapes) with integer coordinates.

**Other considerations**

* The benchmark results show that the `math` approach is significantly faster than the `Path2D` approach on this particular test case.
* If you need to check points against more complex shapes or polygons, `Path2D` might still be a better choice.
* However, for simple rectangle checks, using basic arithmetic operations (`math`) will likely provide the best performance.

**Library and feature usage**

No external libraries are used in this benchmark. The only JavaScript features used are:

1. The HTML5 Canvas API (`Path2D`, `canvas.getContext('2d')`)
2. Basic arithmetic operations (in the `math` approach)

**Alternatives**

If you need to check points against more complex shapes or polygons, consider using a dedicated library like:

1. **Paper.js**: A powerful vector graphics library that can handle complex shapes and paths.
2. **svg-path-parser**: A library for parsing SVG path data, which could be useful if you need to work with SVGs.

Keep in mind that these libraries might introduce additional overhead, so use them only when necessary.

Related benchmarks:

path2d-vs-math (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: path2d vs math

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

path2d

math

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):