Benchmark: setAttribute vs type

Tests:

type
const a = document.createElement('button'); a.type = "button"
setAttribute
const a = document.createElement('button'); a.setAttribute('type', "button");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
type
setAttribute

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
type	5535901.0 Ops/sec
setAttribute	4725000.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, the options compared, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The purpose of this benchmark is to compare two ways of setting the `type` attribute on an HTML element in JavaScript. Specifically, it tests whether using the dot notation (`a.type = "button"`) or the `setAttribute()` method (`a.setAttribute('type', "button")`) results in better performance.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Dot Notation (`a.type = "button"`)**: This approach uses the dot notation to access and modify the `type` property of an element.
2. **`setAttribute()` Method (`a.setAttribute('type', "button")`)**: This approach uses the `setAttribute()` method to set the value of a named attribute on an element.

**Pros and Cons**

**Dot Notation (`a.type = "button"`)**

Pros:

* May be more concise and readable
* Can be easier to understand for developers who are familiar with the dot notation

Cons:

* Might not be as efficient or optimized by the browser's engine
* Could lead to slower performance if the property is not accessed frequently

**`setAttribute()` Method (`a.setAttribute('type', "button")`)**

Pros:

* Can be more efficient and optimized by the browser's engine
* Allows for easier control over attribute names and values

Cons:

* Might require more code or syntax changes for developers who are familiar with the dot notation
* Could lead to slower performance if the method is called frequently

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark only tests the `type` attribute, but in a real-world scenario, you might need to test other attributes as well.
* The benchmark uses JavaScript's DOM API, which can be slow and bloated compared to other programming languages or frameworks. This might affect the results of the benchmark.
* The browser being tested is Chrome 89 on a Windows desktop, which might not be representative of all users or browsers.

**Library**

There doesn't seem to be any library mentioned in this benchmark. It's a simple JavaScript benchmark that relies on the DOM API and the built-in `setAttribute()` method.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. The tests only use standard JavaScript syntax and features, such as the dot notation and the `setAttribute()` method.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in running similar benchmarks, here are some alternatives:

* You could test other attribute-related methods, such as `setAttribute('class', 'button')` or `element.id = "myButton"`.
* You could test other JavaScript features or syntax, such as arrow functions, template literals, or async/await.
* You could test performance benchmarks for different browsers or platforms, to see how they compare.

Keep in mind that running benchmarking tests can be complex and requires a good understanding of the specific requirements and constraints.

Related benchmarks:

setAttribute vs type (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: type vs setAttribute

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

type

setAttribute

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):