Benchmark: remove vs visibility:hidden on each element

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var container = document.getElementById('container');
ul = document.createElement('ul');
var html = [];
    for ( var i=0; i<2000; i += 1 ) {
  	html.push(`<li>${i}</li>`);
}
 ul.innerHTML = html.join('');
 container.appendChild(ul);

Tests:

removeChild
var element = ul.firstElementChild; while (element) { var element = ul.firstElementChild; element && ul.removeChild(element); }
display:none on each element
var elements = Array.prototype.slice.call(container); for (var i = 0; i < elements.length; i++) { elements[i].style.visibility = "hidden"; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
removeChild
display:none on each element

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 to explain what is tested, compared options, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Test**

The test compares two approaches:

1. **Removing child elements using `removeChild`**: This method iteratively calls `removeChild` on each element in a loop.
2. **Setting visibility to "hidden" using CSS**: This method uses the `style` property to set the visibility of each element to "hidden".

**Comparison Options**

The two approaches have different trade-offs:

* **Removal using `removeChild`**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster for large datasets since it doesn't require setting a new style value.
	+ Cons: May incur more overhead due to the iterative loop and potential DOM node traversal.
* **Setting visibility to "hidden" using CSS**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster since it only sets a new style property, which is typically optimized by browsers.
	+ Cons: Requires setting a new style value for each element, which may incur additional overhead.

**Library Used**

The test uses the `Array.prototype.slice.call()` method to create an array of elements from the container. This is likely done to ensure consistency in the number of elements processed during each iteration.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require a deep understanding of the language.

**Other Considerations**

The test assumes that the browser will optimize the DOM for efficient rendering and layout. However, this optimization may vary between browsers and can impact performance.

Additionally, the test does not account for potential issues like:

* Cache effects: Browsers may cache results from previous tests, which could affect performance.
* Browser-specific optimizations: Different browsers may apply different optimizations or caching mechanisms that affect performance.
* Additional overhead: Other factors like JavaScript engine optimizations, CPU usage, and memory allocation can impact performance.

**Alternative Approaches**

Some alternative approaches to consider:

1. **Using `document.querySelectorAll`**: Instead of using `Array.prototype.slice.call()`, you could use `document.querySelectorAll` to create a DOM query object.
2. **Using a for loop with index**: You could use a traditional for loop with an index instead of the while loop used in this benchmark.
3. **Using web worker or parallel processing**: If performance is critical, using web workers or parallel processing can help distribute the workload and potentially improve results.

However, these alternatives are not directly related to the specific trade-offs between `removeChild` and setting visibility to "hidden".

Related benchmarks:

remove vs visibility:hidden on each element (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: removeChild vs display:none on each element

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

removeChild

display:none on each element

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):