Benchmark: bulk Append vs AppendChild

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var container = document.getElementById("container")

function createItem(){
    document.createTextNode("text") 
}

Tests:

AppendChild
for(let i = 0; i < 100; i++){ container.appendChild(document.createElement('div')); }
Bulk Append
const items = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; i++){ items.push(document.createElement('div')); } container.append.apply(container, items);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
AppendChild
Bulk Append

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches to append elements to an HTML container: `appendChild` and `bulk Append`. The test cases use the following libraries:

* `document`: This is a built-in JavaScript library that provides access to the Document Object Model (DOM) of an HTML document. It allows you to manipulate the structure, style, and content of web pages.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared in this benchmark:

1. **AppendChild**: This method appends a new element to the end of the container's childNodes array. It takes a single argument, which is the element to be appended.
2. **Bulk Append**: This method applies the `push` method to an array of elements and then calls the `append` method on the container object, passing the array as an argument.

**Pros and Cons**

* **AppendChild**:
	+ Pros: It's a simple and straightforward approach that is widely supported by modern browsers.
	+ Cons: It can be slower than the bulk append approach for large numbers of elements because it has to iterate over the childNodes array and find the insertion point, which can lead to a lot of DOM manipulations.
* **Bulk Append**:
	+ Pros: This method can be faster than AppendChild for large numbers of elements because it avoids the overhead of iterating over the childNodes array. However, it relies on the `push` method, which may not be supported in older browsers.
	+ Cons: It requires an array to be created and pushed with elements, which can lead to memory allocation and deallocation overhead.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The test case uses JavaScript's `let` keyword with `const` for declaring the `i` variable. This is a modern JavaScript feature called block scope, which was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It allows you to declare variables without declaring them with the `var` keyword.

**Other Considerations**

When running microbenchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Browser support: Ensure that the benchmark is run on multiple browsers to ensure compatibility.
* System resources: Run the benchmark on a system with sufficient RAM and CPU resources to avoid interference from other processes.
* Test environment: Run the benchmark in a test environment that replicates real-world conditions, such as a desktop or mobile device.

**Other Alternatives**

There are other approaches to append elements to an HTML container:

1. **insertBefore**: This method inserts a new element before a specified child element.
2. **insertAdjacentHTML**: This method inserts an HTML string into the DOM at a specified position.
3. **createElementAndInsertAtEnd**: This method creates a new element and inserts it at the end of the container's childNodes array.

These alternatives may have their own performance characteristics and trade-offs, depending on the specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

bulk Append vs AppendChild (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: AppendChild vs Bulk Append

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

AppendChild

Bulk Append

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):