Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Document HTML
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Attr vs query
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Attr
const htmlNodeElement = document.documentElement; htmlNodeElement.style.fontSize = 16 + 'px';
query
const htmlNodeElement = document.querySelector('html'); htmlNodeElement.style.fontSize = 16 + 'px';
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Attr
query
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 definition and test cases. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is empty, which means that the script preparation code and HTML preparation code are not provided. In this case, we can infer that these codes are intended to be included in the test execution but are not specified here. The `Name` and `Description` fields are also empty, suggesting that no specific goal or context for the benchmark is defined. **Individual Test Cases** There are two individual test cases: 1. **Attr**: This test case uses the `document.documentElement` property to access the HTML element, and then sets its font size using JavaScript. The `style.fontSize` property is used to set the font size in pixels. 2. **query**: This test case uses the `document.querySelector('html')` method to select an HTML element and then sets its font size using JavaScript. **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: 1. Using the `document.documentElement` property to access the HTML element (Attr) 2. Using the `document.querySelector('html')` method to select an HTML element (query) These options are comparing how the browser executes these different approaches when trying to set the font size of the HTML element. **Pros and Cons** 1. **Using `document.documentElement`:** * Pros: + Direct access to the root node of the document, which might be faster. + May have better performance since it's a single property lookup. * Cons: + Only works for getting the root element; doesn't work for other elements (e.g., `<body>`). 2. **Using `document.querySelector('html')`:** * Pros: + Works for all HTML elements, including non-root elements like `<body>`. + May be more convenient and flexible. * Cons: + Might require more computation to find the element in the DOM. **Other Considerations** In this case, there's no library being used, so we don't need to consider any external dependencies. The test cases do not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ECMAScript 5/6 and later. **Alternatives** Alternative approaches to these options could include: 1. Using `document.body` instead of `document.documentElement` (Attr). 2. Using `document.querySelector('body')` instead of `document.querySelector('html')` (query). 3. Using other methods, such as `querySelectorAll()` or `getElementsByTagName()`, which might have different performance characteristics. Keep in mind that without more information about the benchmark's goals and requirements, it's difficult to determine which alternative approach would be most suitable.
Related benchmarks:
innerHTML vs removeChild
getElementById, querySelector, querySelectorAll.
PAW-PruebaCreateElement vs innerHTML
template vs div (fixed)
Inspecting the dom
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?