Benchmark: setAttribute vs style.cssText

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="foo"></div>

Tests:

setAttribute
var element = document.getElementById("foo"); var i = 10000; while (i--) { element.setAttribute("style", "width: "+i+"px; height: "+i+"px;"); }
style
var element = document.getElementById("foo"); var i = 10000; while (i--) { element.style.cssText = `width: ${i}px; height: ${i}px;`; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
setAttribute
style

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/146.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 146 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
setAttribute	193.2 Ops/sec
style	240.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of setting attribute and styling an element using CSS are two common scenarios that can be compared to understand which approach is faster.

**Setting Attribute vs Styling with CSS**

The two approaches being compared in this benchmark are:

1. **setAttribute**: This method involves setting the `style` attribute of the element directly. The syntax is `element.setAttribute('style', 'width: ' + i + 'px; height: ' + i + 'px');`. This approach is more prone to browser quirks and inconsistencies because it relies on the browser's interpretation of the CSS syntax in the `style` attribute.
2. **Styling with CSS**: This method involves setting the `cssText` property of the element using a template literal. The syntax is `element.style.cssText = 'width: ' + i + 'px; height: ' + i + 'px';`. This approach is more consistent and reliable because it follows the standard CSS syntax.

**Pros and Cons**

* **setAttribute**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster in some cases due to the simplicity of the operation.
	+ Cons: More prone to browser quirks, may not work as expected in all browsers, and can lead to inconsistent results.
* **Styling with CSS**:
	+ Pros: More consistent and reliable across different browsers, follows standard CSS syntax.
	+ Cons: May be slower than `setAttribute` due to the overhead of parsing and executing the CSS code.

**Library**

There is no library being used in this benchmark. The JavaScript code is simple and does not involve any external libraries or frameworks.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The test case uses a template literal feature in JavaScript, which allows you to embed expressions inside string literals using the backtick (`) character. This feature was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and has been widely adopted since then.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement this benchmark yourself, you could consider other approaches such as:

* Using a CSS-in-JS library like styled-components or emotion.
* Utilizing a CSS preprocessing tool like PostCSS or Sass.
* Implementing a custom CSS parser and renderer.

However, these alternatives would likely introduce additional complexity and overhead, making them less suitable for a simple benchmarking scenario like this one.

Related benchmarks:

setAttribute vs style.cssText (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: setAttribute vs style

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

setAttribute

style

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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