Benchmark: removeChild vs children.remove

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="container"></div>

Script Preparation code:

var node = document.getElementById('container');

for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) node.appendChild(document.createElement('div'));

Tests:

removeChild
var node = document.getElementById('container'); while(node.firstChild) node.removeChild(node.firstChild)
children.remove
for(let i = node.children.length - 1; i >= 0; i--){ node.children[i].remove(); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
removeChild
children.remove

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 131 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
removeChild	2281898.2 Ops/sec
children.remove	2971036.8 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 benchmark and its test cases to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: `removeChild` (using the `node.removeChild(node.firstChild)` method) and `children.remove` (assuming this is a custom function or library that removes child nodes). The goal is to compare the execution time of these two approaches.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates a container element in the DOM, appends 1000 child elements to it, and then initializes the node to be used for removal operations. This code sets up a consistent environment for both test cases.

**Html Preparation Code**

The html preparation code is empty, which means that no additional HTML setup or initialization is required before running the benchmark.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **removeChild**: This test case uses the `node.removeChild(node.firstChild)` method to remove child nodes from the node.
2. **children.remove**: This test case assumes the existence of a custom function or library called `children` that provides a `remove` method for removing child nodes.

**Library Used in children.remove**

The `children` object is likely an extension or wrapper around the native `node.children` property, providing a more convenient API for removing child nodes. This could be part of a larger library or framework designed to simplify DOM manipulation.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There's no specific JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. Both test cases rely on standard JavaScript and DOM APIs.

**Pros and Cons of Approaches**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

* `removeChild`:
	+ Pros: Native, widely supported, and efficient.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to its iterative nature (removing one child at a time).
* `children.remove`: 
	+ Pros: Convenient API, potentially faster if optimized or implemented in native code.
	+ Cons: Not standard, may not be supported by older browsers or environments.

**Other Alternatives**

If the `children` library is not available or supported, alternative approaches to removing child nodes include:

* Using a separate loop for each iteration (similar to the `removeChild` approach).
* Utilizing a more efficient data structure, like a stack or queue, to store child nodes.
* Leveraging browser-specific APIs or extensions (e.g., Web Workers) to offload DOM manipulation tasks.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce additional complexity and may not be as convenient to use as the `children.remove` approach.

Related benchmarks:

removeChild vs children.remove (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: removeChild vs children.remove

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

removeChild

children.remove

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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