Benchmark: template vs div (fixed)

Script Preparation code:

function template(html) {
  var t = document.createElement('template');
  t.innerHTML = html;
  return t.content.firstChild;
}

function div(html) {
  var t = document.createElement('div');
  t.innerHTML = html;
  return t.firstChild;
}

var html = '<tr><td class="col-md-1"></td><td class="col-md-4"><a></a></td><td class="col-md-1"><a><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-remove" aria-hidden="true" /></a></td><td class="col-md-6" /></tr>';

Tests:

Template
template(html).cloneNode(true);
Div
div(html).cloneNode(true);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Template
Div

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 128 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Template	47166.5 Ops/sec
Div	60763.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using a `template` element versus a `div` element to clone and render HTML content.

**Options Compared**

There are two options compared:

1. **Template Approach**: Using an HTML template element (`<template>`) to render and clone HTML content.
2. **Div Approach**: Using a standard HTML `div` element to render and clone HTML content.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Template Approach**:
	+ Pros: Can be more efficient for rendering complex or dynamic content, as it allows for better separation of concerns between the HTML template and the JavaScript code.
	+ Cons: May require additional setup and configuration to work with older browsers or those that don't support `template` elements. Additionally, some modern browsers may have performance issues when using templates due to their complex parsing logic.
* **Div Approach**:
	+ Pros: Widely supported by most browsers, easy to set up and use, and can be faster for simple rendering tasks.
	+ Cons: Can lead to slower performance for more complex or dynamic content, as the browser may need to parse and re-parse the entire HTML document.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library usage mentioned. However, it's worth noting that the `template` approach relies on the HTML5 specification of template elements, which are supported by modern browsers.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code only uses standard JavaScript functions like `cloneNode()` and basic DOM manipulation.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to cloning and rendering HTML content, some options include:

1. **Server-side rendering**: Using a server to render the HTML content before sending it to the client.
2. **Virtual DOM libraries**: Libraries like React or Vue.js that use a virtual DOM (a lightweight in-memory representation of the actual DOM) to optimize rendering performance.
3. **Preact**: A lightweight alternative to React that uses a similar virtual DOM approach.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs and may not be suitable for every use case.

Related benchmarks:

template vs div (fixed) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Template vs Div

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Template

Div

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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