Benchmark: HTMLElement.prototype.contains - small

HTML Preparation code:

<pre>Hello World</pre>

Script Preparation code:

window.__noop = () => {};

Tests:

last-child
document.body.contains(document.body.lastElementChild);
first-child
document.body.contains(document.body.lastElementChild);
no-child
document.body.contains(document.head.lastElementChild);
noop
__noop();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
last-child
first-child
no-child
noop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which includes the script preparation code, HTML preparation code, and individual test cases.

**Script Preparation Code and HTML Preparation Code**

The `window.__noop = () => {};` line is called a "no-op" (short for "no operation") function. It's a dummy function that does nothing when executed. The `<pre>Hello World</pre>` HTML code is used to create a simple HTML element.

**Test Cases**

There are four test cases:

1. `last-child`: Tests the `contains` method on the `document.body.lastElementChild` property.
2. `first-child`: Similar to `last-child`, but tests the `document.body.firstElementChild` property.
3. `no-child`: Verifies that calling a no-op function doesn't affect performance.
4. `noop`: Tests the execution time of the no-op function.

**Browser and Device Platform**

The latest benchmark results show data from a single browser, Chrome 103, running on a desktop device with Windows operating system.

**Comparison Options**

In this benchmark, two main options are being compared:

1. **`contains` method**: This option tests the performance of using the `contains` method to check if an element is part of a collection (in this case, `document.body.lastElementChild`). The results show different execution times for each test case:
	* `last-child`: 2986930.25 executions per second
	* `first-child`: 2950113.75 executions per second
	* `no-child`: 2987150.0 executions per second (similar to `last-child`)
2. **No-op function**: This option tests the performance of calling a no-op function:
	* `noop`: 10047793.0 executions per second

**Pros and Cons**

For the `contains` method:

Pros:

* It's a widely used method in JavaScript
* It can be useful for checking if an element is part of a collection

Cons:

* It might be slower than other methods, like using the `indexOf` method or checking the element's existence directly

For the no-op function:

Pros:

* It's an excellent way to test the performance of JavaScript execution time
* It can help identify bottlenecks in code

Cons:

* It does nothing when executed, so it might not provide meaningful results if used as a standalone benchmark

**Other Considerations**

When creating benchmarks like this one, consider the following:

* Use relevant and representative data: In this case, the data is from Chrome 103 on a desktop device with Windows operating system.
* Choose test cases that are relevant to your specific use case or area of interest.
* Keep in mind that benchmarking can be affected by various factors like hardware, software versions, and network conditions.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for similar benchmarks could include:

1. MicroBenchmark (formerly micro-benchmark): A JavaScript library specifically designed for creating and running microbenchmarks.
2. Benchmark.js: A popular JavaScript benchmarking library that provides a simple and easy-to-use API for creating benchmarks.
3. Google's js-perf: A benchmarking tool specifically designed for JavaScript, which allows you to create and run benchmarks.

These alternatives offer similar functionality to MeasureThat.net but might have different features, syntax, or use cases.

Related benchmarks:

HTMLElement.prototype.contains - small (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: last-child vs first-child vs no-child vs noop

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

last-child

first-child

no-child

noop

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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