Benchmark: Canvas paths performance without alpha

HTML Preparation code:

<canvas align="center" id="canvas" width="800" height="800"></canvas>

Script Preparation code:

var ctx = document.getElementById('canvas').getContext('2d', {alpha: false});
ctx.fillStyle = 'rgba(0,1,0,1)';
var rects = []
for (var i = 0; i < 50; i++) {
  var width = 5 + i * 5;
  var height = 7 + i * 3;
  var path = new Path2D();
  path.rect(0, 0, width, height);
  var rect = 
    {
      x: i, 
      y: i, 
      width: width, 
      height: height, 
      cachedPath: path
    };
  rects.push(rect);
}
ctx.clearRect(0, 0, 500, 500);

Tests:

Direct draw
for (var i = 0; i < rects.length; i++) { var rect = rects[i]; ctx.rect(rect.x, rect.y, rect.width, rect.height); ctx.fill(); }
New path
for (var i = 0; i < rects.length; i++) { var rect = rects[i]; var path = new Path2D(); path.rect(rect.x, rect.y, rect.width, rect.height) ctx.fill(path) }
Cached path
for (var i = 0; i < rects.length; i++) { var rect = rects[i]; ctx.translate(rect.x, rect.y); ctx.fill(rect.path); ctx.translate(-rect.x, -rect.y); }
Direct with beginpath
for (var i = 0; i < rects.length; i++) { var rect = rects[i]; ctx.beginPath(); ctx.rect(rect.x, rect.y, rect.width, rect.height); ctx.fill(); }
Direct fillrect
for (var i = 0; i < rects.length; i++) { var rect = rects[i]; ctx.fillRect(rect.x, rect.y, rect.width, rect.height); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Direct draw
New path
Cached path
Direct with beginpath
Direct fillrect

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark definition and test cases, explaining what's being tested, the pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark for testing the performance of different drawing methods on a 2D canvas. The main idea is to draw multiple rectangles with varying sizes and positions, using different approaches:

1. **Direct draw**: Drawing directly to the canvas without creating any intermediate path objects.
2. **New path**: Creating a new `Path2D` object for each rectangle and drawing it using the `fill()` method.
3. **Cached path**: Using the `translate()` and `fill()` methods to quickly render the rectangles without creating a new path object.
4. **Direct with beginpath**: Drawing directly to the canvas, but using the `beginPath()` method before drawing each rectangle.

**Options Compared**

These test cases compare the performance of different approaches in two aspects:

* Execution speed: How fast can each approach draw all rectangles?
* Memory usage: How much memory is allocated for each approach?

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Direct draw**:
	* Pros: Fast execution, low memory usage.
	* Cons: Can be slow if many rectangles are drawn, as it requires multiple `ctx.rect()` calls.
2. **New path**:
	* Pros: Flexibility to easily modify or replace rectangle shapes, no need to worry about caching.
	* Cons: Slower execution due to creating a new `Path2D` object for each rectangle, higher memory usage.
3. **Cached path**:
	* Pros: Fast execution by leveraging the browser's cache and reuse of canvas rendering context.
	* Cons: Requires precise calculation of transformations to avoid drawing incorrect rectangles, potentially introduces aliasing issues.
4. **Direct with beginpath**:
	* Pros: Combines benefits of direct draw and cached path approaches, allows for better control over rectangle shapes.
	* Cons: Requires additional processing steps, may introduce overhead from `beginPath()` calls.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses a JavaScript engine (Firefox Mobile 48) running on Android, which might have specific optimizations or limitations that affect performance.
* The canvas is rendered in a fixed size (800x800), but the rectangles are drawn at variable positions and sizes. This could lead to varying rendering times depending on the browser's optimization strategies.

**Library and Special JS Features**

The benchmark uses the `Path2D` class from the Web API, which is a part of the HTML5 standard. No special JavaScript features or syntax are required beyond ES6+ compatibility.

**Alternatives**

To further optimize drawing performance, you could consider:

1. Using WebGL or other GPU-accelerated rendering APIs for more efficient rendering.
2. Implementing custom rendering algorithms that exploit specific browser optimizations.
3. Utilizing libraries like Three.js or fabric.js, which provide optimized rendering and event handling mechanisms.

Keep in mind that the choice of rendering method depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and target audience.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Mobile; LYF/LF-2403N/LYF-LF2403N-001-02-08-300518-i;Android; rv:48.0) Gecko/48.0 Firefox/48.0 KAIOS/2.5

Browser/OS: Firefox Mobile 48 on Firefox OS

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Direct draw	1.8 Ops/sec
New path	170.6 Ops/sec
Cached path	0.9 Ops/sec
Direct with beginpath	206.2 Ops/sec
Direct fillrect	383.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Canvas paths performance without alpha (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Direct draw vs New path vs Cached path vs Direct with beginpath vs Direct fillrect

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Direct draw

New path

Cached path

Direct with beginpath

Direct fillrect

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):