Benchmark: Child Element Updating

HTML Preparation code:

<div id='root'>

</div>

Script Preparation code:


var root = document.getElementById('root');

 var i = 0

Tests:

Update after append
for(;i<1000; i++){ var ee = document. createElement("span") root. appendChild(ee) ee. innerText= "Item" + i }
Appending after update
for(;i<1000; i++){ var ee = document. createElement("span") ee. innerText= "Item" + i root. appendChild(ee) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Update after append
Appending after update

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 and its various aspects.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark named "Child Element Updating". The benchmark aims to measure the performance of updating child elements within a DOM tree. There are two test cases: "Update after append" and "Appending after update".

**Options Compared**

In these two test cases, we have three main approaches being compared:

1.  **Updating the innerText property after appending a child element**: This approach updates the `innerText` property of the newly created child element before appending it to the parent element.
2.  **Appending a child element and then updating its innerText property**: In this approach, we create the child element first and then update its `innerText` property.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

*   **Updating the innerText property after appending a child element:**
    *   Pros:
        *   Less overhead in terms of DOM manipulation.
        *   May be more efficient, as it avoids unnecessary append operations.
    *   Cons:
        *   Requires updating the `innerText` property twice (once before and once after appending).
*   **Appending a child element and then updating its innerText property:**
    *   Pros:
        *   More straightforward approach that doesn't require intermediate updates to the `innerText` property.
        *   May be more intuitive for developers.
    *   Cons:
        *   Requires two append operations, which can introduce additional overhead.

**Other Considerations**

There are a few other factors to consider when evaluating these approaches:

*   **DOM tree mutation**: Both approaches involve modifying the DOM tree. However, updating the `innerText` property is generally faster than appending new elements or removing existing ones.
*   **Cache efficiency**: The browser's cache can impact performance in this benchmark. If the same elements are reused throughout the test cases, it may reduce the overhead of DOM manipulation.

**Library Usage**

In both test cases, we're using the `document.createElement()` and `appendChild()` methods to create and append child elements to the parent element (`root`). These methods are part of the standard JavaScript API.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There's no explicit mention of special JavaScript features or syntax in these benchmark definitions. However, it's essential to note that modern browsers like Chrome 87 support various advanced features, such as WebAssembly and WebGL. If the benchmark were to use these features, it could introduce additional complexities and potential performance variations.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or variants for this benchmark, consider the following:

*   **Using a virtual DOM**: Implementing a virtual DOM library can simplify DOM manipulation and provide better cache efficiency. However, this approach may introduce additional overhead due to the virtual representation of the DOM tree.
*   **Reducing unnecessary DOM mutations**: Apply techniques like lazy loading or caching to minimize unnecessary DOM mutations during testing.
*   **Using a benchmarking framework**: Consider using an existing benchmarking framework like Benchmark.js or Microbenchmark to simplify setup and improve accuracy.

Related benchmarks:

Child Element Updating (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Update after append vs Appending after update

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Update after append

Appending after update

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):