Benchmark: innerhtml vs removechild

HTML Preparation code:

<select id="container"></select>

Script Preparation code:

var node = document.getElementById('container');

for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) node.appendChild(document.createElement('option'));

Tests:

innerHTML
var node = document.getElementById('container'); node.innerHTML = '';
removeChild
var node = document.getElementById('container'); while(node.firstChild) node.removeChild(node.firstChild)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
innerHTML
removeChild

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 JSON data to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code creates an HTML element (`select`) with the id "container" and appends 1000 `option` elements to it, using a loop.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This code simply defines the HTML structure for the `select` element.

The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches:

* Using `innerHTML` to clear the contents of an HTML element
* Using `removeChild` to remove child elements from an HTML element

**Options Compared**

In this case, we have two options being compared:

1. **innerHTML**: This method sets the HTML content of an element using its `innerHTML` property.
2. **removeChild**: This method removes one or more child elements from an element and returns the removed children.

**Pros and Cons**

* Using `innerHTML`: Pros:
	+ Simple and concise
	+ Works well for setting text content
Cons:
	+ Can be slower due to DOM manipulation
	+ May cause unnecessary reflows or repaints
* Using `removeChild`: Pros:
	+ More efficient, as it only removes the specified elements
	+ Reduces DOM clutter and potential reflows
Cons:
	+ Requires an explicit loop or callback function
	+ Can be slower due to repeated method calls

**Library**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. The `document.getElementById` method is a native JavaScript API for accessing HTML elements.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None of the provided code snippets use any special JavaScript features or syntax that requires explanation.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement this benchmark using other approaches:

1. Using `textContent`: Similar to `innerHTML`, but more efficient, as it only sets text content without parsing HTML.
2. Using `splice` and array methods: Another approach would be to use the `splice` method on an array of elements to remove them from the container.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided preparation code is simple and concise:

```javascript
var node = document.getElementById('container');
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
  node.appendChild(document.createElement('option'));
}
```

This code creates a large number of `option` elements and appends them to the container, simulating a heavy DOM manipulation scenario.

**Individual Test Cases**

The two individual test cases are designed to compare the performance of:

1. `innerHTML`
2. `removeChild`

Each test case has its own benchmark definition, which is executed once for each iteration.

**Latest Benchmark Result**

The latest result shows that:

* Using `removeChild` outperforms using `innerHTML`, with an execution rate of 383059.875 executions per second compared to 2787047.0.
* Both tests are performed on a Chrome 60 browser on a Mac OS X 10.12.6 device.

Keep in mind that this is just one benchmark result, and results may vary depending on the specific hardware, software, and environment used.

Related benchmarks:

innerhtml vs removechild (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: innerHTML vs removeChild

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

innerHTML

removeChild

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):