Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
window.getComputedStyle vs. memoized version - font size
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
getComputedStyle vs memoized getComputedStyle
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<div id="foo"></div>
Tests:
getComputedStyle
var ele = document.getElementById('foo'); var i = 3000; while (i--) { chekele(); } function chekele() { return window.getComputedStyle(ele, null).fontSize != null; }
memoized getComputedStyle
var ele = document.getElementById('foo'); var computedStyle = window.getComputedStyle(ele, null); var i = 3000; while (i--) { chekele(); } function chekele() { return computedStyle.fontSize != null; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
getComputedStyle
memoized getComputedStyle
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **What's being tested:** The benchmark is comparing two approaches to accessing the `fontSize` property of an HTML element: 1. Using the `window.getComputedStyle()` method directly, as shown in the first test case. 2. Memoizing the result of `window.getComputedStyle()`, i.e., caching the computed style properties of the element for subsequent executions. **Options compared:** The two approaches are being compared to measure their performance impact on execution speed. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **Direct use of `window.getComputedStyle()`**: * Pros: + Simple and straightforward. + No additional memory allocation or data structure overhead. * Cons: + Can result in slower execution times due to repeated computations (e.g., if the element's styles change frequently). + Requires more CPU cycles for calculations and lookups. 2. **Memoized approach**: * Pros: + Caches computed style properties, reducing repetition and improving performance on subsequent executions. + Can reduce memory allocation overhead compared to storing intermediate results in variables. * Cons: + Requires additional memory allocation to store the cached result (computedStyle). + May lead to increased complexity due to dependency on caching. **Library/Utility:** In both test cases, `chekele()` is a custom function that performs a simple check on the `fontSize` property. There's no external library or utility used in this benchmark. **Special JS feature/syntax:** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code adheres to standard ECMAScript (JS) syntax. **Other alternatives:** If you're looking for alternative approaches, consider: 1. **Using a library like `styled-components`**: This library provides a declarative way to style components and can optimize performance by precomputing styles. 2. **Implementing a custom caching mechanism using `WeakMap`**: Instead of relying on `window.getComputedStyle()`, you could create a custom cache using `WeakMap` to store the computed styles for each element. 3. **Using Web Workers or parallel processing**: If you're dealing with large datasets, consider using web workers or parallel processing techniques to execute the benchmarks concurrently. Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity and dependencies, so it's essential to carefully evaluate their trade-offs before implementing them.
Related benchmarks:
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() vs Math.floorfaster test
toFixed() vs Math.round().toString()
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() asd
Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000000000).toString() vs window.performance.now().toFixed()
parseFloat(toFixed) vs Math.round()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?