Benchmark: fragment vs array

Tests:

fragment
const array = document.createDocumentFragment(); for(let i = 0 ; i< 10000; i++){ array.append(document.createElement('div')); } const root = document.createElement('div'); root.append(array);
array
const array = []; for(let i = 0 ; i< 10000; i++){ array.push(document.createElement('div')); } const root = document.createElement('div'); root.append(...array);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
fragment
array

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 definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two test cases:

1. **Fragment**: This test case creates a `document.createDocumentFragment()` object, appends 10,000 HTML elements (`<div>`) to it, and then appends the fragment to another `<div>` element.
2. **Array**: This test case creates an empty array, pushes 10,000 HTML elements onto it using `push()`, and then uses the spread operator (`...`) to append all elements from the array to a new `<div>` element.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. Using a `document.createDocumentFragment()` object to batch append HTML elements.
2. Using an array to store and append HTML elements.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Fragment:**

Pros:

* Can potentially reduce the number of DOM mutations, as all append operations occur in a single step.
* May improve performance by reducing the number of `appendChild()` calls.

Cons:

* Creates a new object (`document.createDocumentFragment()`) which may incur additional overhead.
* The fragment is only updated when it's appended to another element, so any subsequent changes to individual elements within the fragment are not reflected immediately.

**Array:**

Pros:

* Does not create an extra object or modify the DOM in a single step.
* Elements can be modified independently after they're added to the array.

Cons:

* May result in more DOM mutations (push() and append()) compared to using a fragment, potentially leading to performance degradation.
* The spread operator (`...`) is used to concatenate all elements from the array, which may incur additional overhead due to the creation of intermediate objects.

**Library:**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, `document.createDocumentFragment()` is a built-in JavaScript method for creating document fragments.

**Special JS Features or Syntax:**

None are explicitly used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different approaches to append HTML elements.

**Other Considerations:**

When designing benchmarks like this, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Browser and platform support
* Version-specific optimizations
* Code generation and parsing overhead

In the context of this benchmark, the results suggest that the fragment approach may have a slight performance advantage, but further investigation would be necessary to confirm this.

**Alternatives:**

If you were to design an alternative benchmark, you might consider comparing other approaches, such as:

1. Using a `template` element vs. concatenating strings using `innerHTML`.
2. Comparing the performance of different DOM manipulation libraries (e.g., React, Angular).
3. Evaluating the impact of using `requestAnimationFrame()` or `setTimeout()` on performance.

Keep in mind that each benchmark should be designed to answer a specific question and provide actionable insights for improvement.

Related benchmarks:

fragment vs array (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: fragment vs array

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

fragment

array

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):