Benchmark: Text.data vs Text.nodeValue

Script Preparation code:

function randomString(length) {
    let result = "";
    const characters = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789";
    for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) {
        result += characters.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * characters.length));
    }
    return result;
}

var randomStrings = Array.from({
    length: 1000
}, () => randomString(100));

var text = document.createTextNode("");

Tests:

Text.data
for (const s of randomStrings) { text.data = s; }
Text.nodeValue
for (const s of randomStrings) { text.nodeValue = s; }
Text.data with check against old value
for (const s of randomStrings) { if (text.data !== s) { text.data = s; } }
Text.nodeValue with check against old value
for (const s of randomStrings) { if (text.nodeValue !== s) { text.nodeValue = s; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Text.data
Text.nodeValue
Text.data with check against old value
Text.nodeValue with check against old value

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) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/109.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 109 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Text.nodeValue

7K/s

Text.data

6K/s

Text.data with check against old value

4K/s

Text.nodeValue with check against old value

4K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Text.nodeValue	6,824 Ops/sec
Text.data	5,852 Ops/sec
Text.data with check against old value	3,996 Ops/sec
Text.nodeValue with check against old value	3,850 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 and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of setting the `nodeValue` property versus setting the `data` property of an HTML text node in JavaScript.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines a function `randomString(length)` that generates a random string of a specified length. This function is used to create an array of 1000 random strings, which are then assigned to the `nodeValue` and `data` properties of a new HTML text node using three different test cases:

1. Setting `nodeValue`
2. Setting `data`
3. Checking against old value for both `nodeValue` and `data`

**Html Preparation Code**

The html preparation code is empty, which means that no additional HTML element or setup is required for the benchmark.

**Options Being Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches:

1. **Setting `nodeValue`**: Assigning a new string value directly to the `nodeValue` property.
2. **Setting `data`**: Assigning a new string value directly to the `data` property, which is the internal data storage of the text node.
3. **Checking against old value for both `nodeValue` and `data`**: In this approach, the code checks if the current value is different from the previous value before assigning a new one.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Setting `nodeValue`**:
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward.
	* Cons: May not be efficient for large strings, as it involves creating a new DOM node or updating an existing one.
2. **Setting `data`**:
	* Pros: More efficient than setting `nodeValue`, as it only updates the internal data storage of the text node.
	* Cons: Not all browsers support the `data` property, and some may have performance issues with frequent updates.
3. **Checking against old value for both `nodeValue` and `data`**:
	* Pros: Ensures that the updated value is different from the previous one, which can prevent accidental updates.
	* Cons: Adds extra computational overhead due to the comparison.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also includes information about the device platform, operating system, browser version, and number of executions per second for each test case. This data helps identify potential issues with different browsers or environments.

**Alternative Approaches**

In addition to the three approaches being compared in this benchmark, other alternatives might include:

* Using a `TextEditor` library, which provides a more efficient way to manipulate text nodes.
* Implementing a custom solution using Web Workers or other parallel processing techniques to optimize performance.
* Utilizing browser-specific features, such as `WebAssembly`, to accelerate performance.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case and requirements.

Text.data vs Text.nodeValue (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Text.data vs Text.nodeValue vs Text.data with check against old value vs Text.nodeValue with check against old value`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Text.data

Text.nodeValue

Text.data with check against old value

Text.nodeValue with check against old value

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Text.data vs Text.nodeValue (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Text.data vs Text.nodeValue vs Text.data with check against old value vs Text.nodeValue with check against old value

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Text.data

Text.nodeValue

Text.data with check against old value

Text.nodeValue with check against old value

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Comparing performance of: `Text.data vs Text.nodeValue vs Text.data with check against old value vs Text.nodeValue with check against old value`