Benchmark: innerhtml vs removechild vs simpler 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:

innnerHTML
var node = document.getElementById('container'); node.innerHTML = '';
removeChild
var node = document.getElementById('container'); while(node.firstChild) node.removeChild(node.firstChild);
simpler remove
var node = document.getElementById('container'); while(node.firstChild) node.firstChild.remove();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
innnerHTML
removeChild
simpler remove

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, the options compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches for clearing the inner HTML of an HTML element: `innerHTML`, `removeChild`, and a simpler version of `removeChild` (using `remove()` on the first child node).

**Test Cases**

1. **`innerHTML`**: This test case uses the built-in `innerHTML` property to clear the contents of an HTML element. The `innerHTML` property is a convenient way to set the content of an element, but it can be slow because it involves parsing and manipulating the HTML string.
2. **`removeChild`**: This test case uses the `removeChild` method to remove all child nodes from the element. This approach can be slower than `innerHTML` because it requires iterating over the child nodes and removing them one by one.
3. **`simpler remove`**: This test case uses a simpler version of the `removeChild` method, which only removes the first child node using `remove()`. While this might seem like a good idea, it's not actually faster than the full `removeChild` approach because it still requires iterating over the child nodes to find the first one.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`innerHTML`**: Pros:
	+ Simple and concise code
	+ Fastest performance (due to native support)
Cons:
	+ Can be slow due to parsing and manipulating HTML strings
* **`removeChild`**: Pros:
	+ More control over the removal process
	+ Can be faster than `innerHTML` for large numbers of child nodes
Cons:
	+ Requires iterating over child nodes, which can be slower
* **`simpler remove`**: Pros:
	+ Might seem like a good idea, but it's not actually faster than full `removeChild`
Cons:
	+ Still requires iterating over child nodes to find the first one

**Library Usage**

None of the test cases use any external libraries. The only library-like behavior is the built-in `innerHTML` property and the `removeChild` method.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to add more performance tests, you could consider comparing other approaches for clearing HTML elements, such as:

* Using a string-based approach with regular expressions
* Utilizing Web Workers or threads for parallel processing
* Testing the use of `textContent` property instead of `innerHTML`
* Measuring the performance of different caching strategies

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require additional test cases and complexity to implement.

Related benchmarks:

innerhtml vs removechild vs simpler remove (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: innnerHTML vs removeChild vs simpler remove

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

innnerHTML

removeChild

simpler remove

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):