Benchmark: Overhead of saving and restoring context state

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

$canvas = document.getElementById('canvas');
$context = $canvas.getContext('2d');
$context.clearRect(0, 0, 800, 300);

$iterations = 500;

Tests:

Not saving and restoring context state
for (let i=0; i<$iterations; ++i) { $context.fillStyle = 'rgba(100,150,200,0.9)'; $context.fillRect(0, 0, 1, 1); }
Saving and restoring context state
for (let i=0; i<$iterations; ++i) { $context.save(); $context.fillStyle = 'rgba(100,150,200,0.9)'; $context.fillRect(0, 0, 1, 1); $context.restore(); }

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 23 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 17 runs

Not saving and restoring context state

4K/s

Saving and restoring context state

2K/s

Fastest: Not saving and restoring context state (1.9x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Not saving and restoring context state: 4,361 ops/sec
• Saving and restoring context state: 2,322 ops/sec

Firefox 6 runs

Not saving and restoring context state

7K/s

Saving and restoring context state

6K/s

Fastest: Not saving and restoring context state (1.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Not saving and restoring context state: 6,671 ops/sec
• Saving and restoring context state: 5,553 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Not saving and restoring context state
Saving and restoring context state

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:138.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/138.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 138 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Not saving and restoring context state

6K/s

Saving and restoring context state

6K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Not saving and restoring context state	6,090 Ops/sec
Saving and restoring context state	5,502 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark JSON and explain what is being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided benchmark definition represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the overhead of saving and restoring context state in a 2D drawing context using the HTML5 Canvas API. The test creates a canvas element with a size of 800x300 pixels, sets up a 2D drawing context, clears it, and then performs two types of draws:

1. **Not saving and restoring context state**: In this case, the script directly applies the fill style and fills the entire canvas area without saving the current context state.
2. **Saving and restoring context state**: In this variant, the script saves the current context state before applying the fill style and filling the entire canvas area. After that, it restores the original context state.

**Comparison of Options**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Not saving and restoring context state**: This approach assumes that the context state is already stored in a register or stack frame when the script executes. In this case, the overhead is only due to the execution time of the draw operations.
2. **Saving and restoring context state**: This approach saves the current context state before applying the fill style and filling the entire canvas area. The restored state is then discarded, which means that the context state needs to be recalculated every time.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each option:

* Not saving and restoring context state:
	+ Pros: Less overhead due to reduced number of operations.
	+ Cons: May lead to inaccurate results if the execution time is dominated by other factors, such as garbage collection or caching.
* Saving and restoring context state:
	+ Pros: Can provide more accurate results by accounting for the overhead of saving and restoring the context state.
	+ Cons: Increases the number of operations, which may lead to higher overhead and slower execution times.

**Library and Syntax**

There is no library used in this benchmark. The script uses standard JavaScript features like loops, variables, and the Canvas API.

**Special JS Features or Syntax (None)**

Since there are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark, we can move on to the next section.

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives for testing this type of benchmark could include:

* Testing with a smaller canvas size
* Using a different drawing primitive, such as `drawImage()`
* Adding more complex shapes or patterns to the draw operations
* Using a different rendering engine or browser

However, these variations would require careful consideration of the potential impact on the accuracy and relevance of the benchmark results.

Overall, this benchmark provides a useful insight into the overhead of saving and restoring context state in JavaScript, which can be important for optimizing performance-critical code.

Overhead of saving and restoring context state (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Not saving and restoring context state vs Saving and restoring context state`

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Not saving and restoring context state

Saving and restoring context state

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 23 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 17 runs

Firefox 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Overhead of saving and restoring context state (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: Not saving and restoring context state vs Saving and restoring context state

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Not saving and restoring context state

Saving and restoring context state

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 23 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 17 runs

Firefox 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Not saving and restoring context state vs Saving and restoring context state`