Benchmark: Input vs Textarea large text

HTML Preparation code:

<input id="input" placeholder="Input test" value="" />
<textarea id="textarea" placeholder="Textarea test" value=""></textarea>

Script Preparation code:


let largeText = ''

for(i=0; i<100; i++) {
  largeText += (Math.random() + 1).toString(36).substring(2)
}

function populateThenEmpty(dom, times) {
    for(ii=0; ii<times; ii++) {
    dom.value = largeText
    dom.value = ''
  }
}

Tests:

Input test
populateThenEmpty(document.getElementById('input'), 1000)
Textarea test
populateThenEmpty(document.getElementById('textarea'), 1000)

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 7 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 7 runs

Input test

471/s

Textarea test

443/s

View exact numbers

✓ Input test: 471 ops/sec
• Textarea test: 443 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Input test
Textarea test

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Input test

853/s

Textarea test

607/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Input test	853 Ops/sec
Textarea test	607 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 provided benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two different input methods: an `<input>` element and a `<textarea>` element. Both elements are populated with a large amount of random text, and then emptied repeatedly to test the rendering and updating speed of each element.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **<input> Element**: This option tests the performance of an `<input>` element when populated with large amounts of text and then emptied.
2. **<textarea> Element**: This option tests the performance of a `<textarea>` element when populated with large amounts of text and then emptied.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **<input> Element**:
	* Pros: May be faster due to its smaller size compared to a `<textarea>`, which can be affected by scrolling.
	* Cons: May not accurately represent real-world use cases, as users often interact with textareas for inputting large amounts of text.
2. **<textarea> Element**:
	* Pros: More representative of real-world use cases, as users often interact with textareas for inputting large amounts of text.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the additional rendering and scrolling complexity introduced by its larger size.

**Library Used**

The `populateThenEmpty` function uses a JavaScript library that is not specified in the provided benchmark. However, based on the code structure and naming conventions, it appears to be a custom-built or third-party library designed for benchmarking UI component performance.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. The code primarily focuses on testing the performance of HTML elements with standard JavaScript functionality.

**Other Considerations**

* The large amount of random text used to populate both elements can lead to a high number of executions, which may skew results.
* The use of `document.getElementById` for accessing elements assumes that the page has already loaded and DOM elements are available. In a real-world scenario, this might not always be the case.
* The benchmark does not account for the impact of CSS styles or layout on rendering performance.

**Alternatives**

If you were to recreate this benchmark, consider the following alternatives:

1. **Use a more representative text input method**, such as a `<select>` element with multiple options or a `contenteditable` div.
2. **Introduce scrolling complexity** by adding a large number of text lines or using a scrolling-enabled textarea with a small height.
3. **Test rendering performance on different devices** by running the benchmark on various browsers, operating systems, and screen resolutions.

These alternatives can help provide more accurate insights into the performance characteristics of input elements in real-world scenarios.

Input vs Textarea large text (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Input test vs Textarea test`

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Input test

Textarea test

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 7 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 7 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Input vs Textarea large text (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Input test vs Textarea test

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Input test

Textarea test

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 7 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 7 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Input test vs Textarea test`