Benchmark: getcontext - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

cache
var canvas=document.createElement('canvas'); var ctx=canvas.getContext('2d'); for (var i=0; i<10000; i++) { var b=ctx; }
no cache
var canvas=document.createElement('canvas'); for (var i=0; i<10000; i++) { var b=canvas.getContext('2d'); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
cache
no cache

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_6) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/14.0.2 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 14 on Mac OS X 10.15.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
cache	185565.6 Ops/sec
no cache	2268.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark is a simple JavaScript microbenchmark that measures the performance of two approaches: caching and non-caching methods for accessing a 2D drawing context in a HTML canvas element.

**Benchmark Definition Json**

The JSON file contains the following information:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "getcontext".
* `Description`: An empty string indicating that there is no description for this benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: Both are empty strings, meaning that no additional code needs to be executed before running the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Cache**: This test case creates a new canvas element and caches its 2D drawing context using the `var ctx=canvas.getContext('2d');` statement. Then, it loops 10,000 times, reusing the cached context `b = ctx;`.
2. **No Cache**: This test case also creates a new canvas element, but instead of caching the context, it loops 10,000 times, accessing the context using `var b = canvas.getContext('2d');` directly.

**Library and Syntax**

In both test cases, no external libraries are used, and there are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned. The benchmark relies solely on standard JavaScript functionality to execute.

**Comparison of Options**

The two approaches compared in this benchmark are:

1. **Caching**: Caching the context allows for faster execution because it avoids creating a new context object every time the loop iterates.
2. **Non-Caching**: Not caching the context requires creating a new context object on each iteration, which is slower.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Caching**: Pros:
	+ Faster execution due to reduced context creation overhead
	+ Reuses the cached context, avoiding unnecessary memory allocations
Cons:
	+ Requires more memory to store the cached context
	+ May lead to increased garbage collection if the benchmark runs for an extended period
* **Non-Caching**: Pros:
	+ Does not require any additional memory allocation or caching
	+ Avoids potential garbage collection issues with cached contexts
Cons:
	+ Slower execution due to repeated context creation overhead

**Other Considerations**

When deciding between caching and non-caching approaches, consider the specific requirements of your application. If you need to render graphics frequently, caching the context may be beneficial for performance. However, if you're only using the canvas for occasional drawing tasks or have limited resources, the non-caching approach might be sufficient.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to benchmarking this particular use case could include:

* Using a different library or framework that provides optimized canvas functionality.
* Implementing a custom caching mechanism to mitigate the overhead of context creation.
* Optimizing the graphics rendering pipeline by reducing the number of drawing operations.
* Using WebAssembly or other low-level languages for improved performance.

Keep in mind that this is just one example of a benchmark, and there are many variations and edge cases to consider when evaluating performance optimization strategies.

Related benchmarks:

getcontext (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: cache vs no cache

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

cache

no cache

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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