Benchmark: insertAdjacentElement vs prepend

HTML Preparation code:

<body></body>

Tests:

insertAdjacentElement
const div = document.createElement("div"); const loadingImg = document.createElement("img"); div.id = "js-loading"; loadingImg.src = "img/loading-circle.gif"; loadingImg.alt = "ローディング画像"; 　 document.body .insertAdjacentElement("afterbegin", div) .appendChild(loadingImg);
prepend
const div = document.createElement("div"); const loadingImg = document.createElement("img"); div.id = "js-loading"; loadingImg.src = "img/loading-circle.gif"; loadingImg.alt = "ローディング画像"; document.body.prepend(div); div.appendChild(loadingImg);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
insertAdjacentElement
prepend

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.

Measuring the performance of two different ways to append elements to the DOM: `insertAdjacentElement` and `prepend`. Let's dive into the details.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests the execution time of appending an element with its child (`loadingImg`) using both `insertAdjacentElement` and `prepend`. The test creates a new `div` element and sets its ID to "js-loading". It then creates another element, `loadingImg`, which is an image with a src attribute set to a loading GIF. Both elements are appended to the DOM using the two different methods.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the following options:

1. **insertAdjacentElement**: This method inserts an element at a specified position relative to its parent node. In this case, we insert `div` after the beginning of the `body` element.
2. **prepend**: This method prepends an element to the beginning of the `body` element.

**Pros and Cons**

### InsertAdjacentElement

Pros:

* More flexible: You can specify a position relative to the parent node (e.g., "beforebegin", "afterbegin", etc.).
* Easier to use: You don't need to worry about maintaining the insertion order of elements in the DOM.

Cons:

* Can be slower due to the overhead of inserting an element at a specific position.
* May require more DOM manipulation, which can lead to performance issues if not done correctly.

### Prepend

Pros:

* Faster: Prepending an element is generally faster than inserting it using `insertAdjacentElement`, as it only requires updating the first child node.
* Simpler: You don't need to worry about maintaining insertion order or specifying a position relative to the parent node.

Cons:

* Less flexible: You can only prepend elements, not insert them at a specific position.
* May lead to performance issues if you have many elements in the DOM and need to frequently prepend new elements.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript frameworks or libraries (e.g., React, Angular) may use `insertAdjacentElement` or `prepend` internally for DOM manipulation.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. It's a straightforward example of comparing the performance of two DOM manipulation methods.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for appending elements to the DOM include:

* Using `appendChild` and then setting `style.display` to "none" if not visible.
* Using a library like jQuery, which provides methods like `.append()`, `.prepend()`, etc.
* Using a virtual DOM library like React or Angular, which abstracts away the underlying DOM manipulation.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have their own performance implications and trade-offs.

Related benchmarks:

insertAdjacentElement vs prepend (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: insertAdjacentElement vs prepend

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

insertAdjacentElement

prepend

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):