Benchmark: path2d-vs-math-no-function-overhead

Script Preparation code:

var boundingRect = { x: 10, y: 10, width: 100, height: 50 };
var x = 20;
var y = 20;

const canvas = document.createElement('canvas');
var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');
var rectanglePath2D = new Path2D();
rectanglePath2D.rect(boundingRect.x, boundingRect.y, boundingRect.width, boundingRect.height);

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
ctx.isPointInPath(rectanglePath2D, x, y);
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

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and its options for you.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two different approaches to determine if a point (x, y) lies within a rectangle defined by another point (x1, y1), width (w), and height (h).

The script preparation code creates a canvas element, gets its 2D drawing context, and defines a `rectanglePath2D` object with the given bounding rectangle coordinates. The benchmark then uses two different methods:

1. **`ctx.isPointInPath(rectanglePath2D, x, y)`**: This method is part of the HTML5 Canvas API's 2D graphics context. It checks if the point (x, y) lies within the path defined by `rectanglePath2D`.
2. **`calculateViaMath()`**: This function calculates the result manually using basic geometric calculations:
	* Returns true if x lies between boundingRect.x and maxX, and y lies between boundingRect.y and maxY.

**Comparison**

The two approaches are compared to determine which one is faster:

1. **`ctx.isPointInPath(rectanglePath2D, x, y)`**: This method uses the 2D graphics context's built-in point-in-path test.
2. **`calculateViaMath()`**: This function performs manual calculations using basic geometry.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **`ctx.isPointInPath(rectanglePath2D, x, y)`**
	* Pros:
		+ Built-in implementation in the HTML5 Canvas API.
		+ Typically faster due to optimized implementations.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be suitable for all use cases (e.g., complex shapes or non-rectangular paths).
		+ Requires a graphics context, which might add overhead.
2. **`calculateViaMath()`**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more flexible and adaptable to different shape types.
		+ Might be easier to understand for developers familiar with geometric calculations.
	* Cons:
		+ Typically slower due to manual calculations.
		+ Requires additional logic to handle different cases (e.g., NaN or out-of-bounds values).

**Library and Special JavaScript Feature**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library being used. However, the `Path2D` class is part of the HTML5 Canvas API's 2D graphics context. It provides a way to define complex paths using geometric shapes.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are explicitly mentioned in the provided code snippets.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or comparing other methods, here are some options:

* Use `getBBox()` and `contains()` methods for more general-purpose point-in-rectangle testing.
* Implement a custom point-in-rectangle algorithm using bitwise operations (e.g., [bitwise and](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwise_and)).
* Compare the performance of other point-in-path algorithms, such as those used in SVG or V8 engines.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 16_3 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.3 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 16 on iOS 16.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
path2d	1552307.1 Ops/sec
math	2341090.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

path2d-vs-math-no-function-overhead (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: path2d vs math

Created: one year 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 llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):