Benchmark: createElement vs cloneNode v3

Tests:

createElement
var list = [], n = 0; while(true) { n++; list.push(document.createTextNode('div')); if(n===100000) break; }
cloneNode
var list = [], n = 0, node = document.createTextNode('div'); while(true) { n++; list.push(node.cloneNode(false)); if(n===100000) break; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
createElement
cloneNode

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:148.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/148.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 148 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
createElement	70.2 Ops/sec
cloneNode	122.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring performance differences is essential in web development to ensure efficient coding practices.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON benchmark definition tests the speed difference between two approaches: `createElement` and `cloneNode(v3)` for creating new DOM elements before insertion. This comparison helps identify the most efficient method, which can impact the overall performance of a web application.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **createElement**: The traditional approach to create a new DOM element using the `document.createElement()` method.
2. **cloneNode(v3)**: A newer approach that uses the `cloneNode()` method with the `true` argument, which is not supported in older browsers but can be used for Safari 14 and above.

**Pros and Cons**

### createElement

Pros:

* Widely supported across modern browsers
* Easy to understand and implement
* Suitable for most web development scenarios

Cons:

* May incur additional overhead due to the creation of a new DOM node
* Can lead to memory leaks if not managed correctly

### cloneNode(v3)

Pros:

* More efficient than createElement in certain scenarios (e.g., Safari 14 and above)
* Reduces memory allocation and garbage collection overhead
* Suitable for specific use cases where speed is critical

Cons:

* Not supported in older browsers, which may be a significant limitation
* May require additional handling to ensure compatibility with legacy browsers

**Other Considerations**

1. **Library Usage**: Neither `createElement` nor `cloneNode(v3)` relies on any external libraries.
2. **JavaScript Features**: Both options use standard JavaScript syntax and do not rely on any specific features or syntax.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided JSON benchmark definition does not include preparation code for the HTML document, which is unusual. Typically, a benchmark would prepare an empty or minimal HTML document to ensure that only DOM element creation is being measured. The absence of preparation code may affect the accuracy of the results.

**Alternatives**

If you need to measure performance differences between other approaches or variations, consider exploring the following alternatives:

* **Template literals**: Using template literals can provide a more efficient way to create text content for elements.
* **DOM mutations vs. element replacement**: Measuring the performance difference between mutating existing DOM nodes and replacing them entirely.
* **Different libraries or frameworks**: Comparing the performance of different libraries or frameworks, such as React or Angular, in creating DOM elements.

Keep in mind that each benchmark should be designed to isolate specific performance considerations and ensure accurate results.

Related benchmarks:

createElement vs cloneNode v3 (version: 0)

Faster way to create new dom elements before insertion

Comparing performance of: createElement vs cloneNode

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

createElement

cloneNode

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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