mt-polygon-simplification/thesis/chapters/04.00-results.tex

\section[Results]{Benchmark results}

In this chapter the results are presented. There were a multitude of tests to make. Multiple devices were used to run several benchmarks on different browsers and under various parameters. To organize which benchmarks had to run, first all the problem dimensions were clarified. Devices will be categorized into desktop and mobile devices. The browsers to test will come from the four major browser vendors which were involved in WebAssembly development. Those are Firefox from Mozilla, Chrome from Google, Edge from Microsoft and Safari from Apple. For either of the two data sets a fixed range of tolerances is set to maintain consistency across the diagrams. The values are explained in chapter \ref{ch:benchmark-data}. The other parameter "high quality" can be either switched on or off. The three chart types are explained in chapter \ref{ch:benchmark-cases}.

Each section in this chapter describes a set of benchmarks run on the same system. A table in the beginning will indicate the problem dimensions chosen to inspect. After a description of the system and a short summary of the case the results will be presented in the form of graphs. Those are the graphs produced from the application described in chapter \ref{ch:benchmark-app}


\subsection{Case 1 - Windows - wasm vs js}
\marginpar{hp pavilion}
\marginpar{6 charts}
\marginpar{questions: 1, 3, 5}

\begin{table}[htb]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=.75\linewidth]{./images/dimensions-1.png}
	\label{tbl:dimensions-1}
	\caption{Problem dimensions of Case 1}
\end{table}

Benchmark of dataset "Simplify.js example" using the web browsers of Google, Microsoft and Mozilla.

\input{./results-benchmark/win_chro_simplify_vs_false.tex}
\input{./results-benchmark/win_ffox_simplify_vs_false.tex}
\input{./results-benchmark/win_edge_simplify_vs_false.tex}
\input{./results-benchmark/win_chro_simplify_vs_true.tex}
\input{./results-benchmark/win_ffox_simplify_vs_true.tex}
\input{./results-benchmark/win_edge_simplify_vs_true.tex}
\clearpage

\subsection{Case 2 - Windows - wasm runtime analysis}
\marginpar{hp pavilion}
\marginpar{2 charts}
\marginpar{questions: 2, 3, 5}
\todo{maybe add ffox}

\begin{table}[htb]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=.75\linewidth]{./images/dimensions-2.png}
	\label{tbl:dimensions-2}
	\caption{Problem dimensions of Case 2}
\end{table}

\input{./results-benchmark/win_edge_simplify_stack_false.tex}
\input{./results-benchmark/win_edge_simplify_stack_true.tex}
\clearpage

\subsection{Case 3 - MacBook Pro - wasm vs js}
\marginpar{MacBook Pro 15}
\marginpar{4 charts}
\marginpar{Chrome and FF comparable to results above}

\begin{table}[htb]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=.75\linewidth]{./images/dimensions-3.png}
	\label{tbl:dimensions-3}
	\caption{Problem dimensions of Case 3}
\end{table}


\input{./results-benchmark/mac_safa_bavaria_vs_false.tex}
\input{./results-benchmark/mac_ffox_bavaria_vs_false.tex}
\input{./results-benchmark/mac_safa_bavaria_vs_true.tex}
\input{./results-benchmark/mac_ffox_bavaria_vs_true.tex}
\clearpage

\subsection{Case 4 - Ubuntu - turf.js analysis}
\marginpar{Lenovo Miix 510}
\marginpar{4 charts}
\marginpar{Firefox because orig simplify is faster}

\begin{table}[htb]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=.75\linewidth]{./images/dimensions-4.png}
	\label{tbl:dimensions-4}
	\caption{Problem dimensions of Case 4}
\end{table}

\input{./results-benchmark/ubu_ffox_bavaria_vs_false.tex}
\input{./results-benchmark/ubu_ffox_bavaria_jsstack_false.tex}
\input{./results-benchmark/ubu_ffox_bavaria_vs_true.tex}
\input{./results-benchmark/ubu_ffox_bavaria_jsstack_true.tex}
\clearpage

\subsection{Case 5 - iPhone - mobile testing}

\marginpar{iPhone??}
\marginpar{6 charts}

\begin{table}[htb]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=.75\linewidth]{./images/dimensions-5.png}
	\label{tbl:dimensions-5}
	\caption{Problem dimensions of Case 5}
\end{table}