Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
clone vs inner
(version: 0)
tes
Comparing performance of:
cloning vs inner with join
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
cloning
const paren = document.createElement('div'); let n = 0; const div = document.createElement('div'); const p = document.createElement('p'); p.classList.add('font-bold'); p.textContent = 'Hello!'; div.appendChild(p); while(true) { n++; paren.appendChild(div.cloneNode(true)); if(n===100000) break; }
inner with join
const paren = document.createElement('div'); let n = 0; let str= []; while(true) { n++; str.push('<div><p class="font-bold">Hello!</p></div>'); if(n===100000) break; } paren.innerHTML = str.join('');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
cloning
inner with join
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 JSON and explain what is tested in the benchmark. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript function or code snippet that defines a microbenchmark. In this case, there are two benchmarks defined: 1. `clone vs inner`: This benchmark compares the performance of cloning elements versus using the `innerHTML` property to append HTML strings. 2. `inner with join`: This benchmark tests the performance of using the `innerHTML` property to append HTML strings joined by a separator. **Options Compared** The benchmark is comparing two approaches: 1. **Cloning Elements**: This approach creates a new element, clones it, and appends it to another element. The cloned element is created by calling `cloneNode(true)` on the original element. 2. **Using `innerHTML` with Join**: This approach creates an array of HTML strings, joins them together using the `join()` method, and sets the `innerHTML` property of a container element to the joined string. **Pros and Cons** **Cloning Elements:** Pros: * Allows for more control over the HTML structure * Can be faster for large datasets if done correctly Cons: * Requires more overhead due to cloning the elements * May incur additional DOM manipulations **Using `innerHTML` with Join:** Pros: * Faster and more lightweight than cloning elements * Simplifies code and reduces the number of DOM manipulations Cons: * Less control over the HTML structure * Can be slower for large datasets if not optimized correctly **Library Usage** In the provided benchmark definition, there is no explicit library usage. However, it's likely that some libraries or frameworks might be used in a real-world scenario. **Special JS Features/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. The code uses standard JavaScript constructs and does not include any advanced features like async/await, Promises, or modern ES6+ syntax. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to microbenchmarks, here are a few options: * **Benchmarking frameworks**: Libraries like Benchmark.js, Microbenchmark, or JSPerf provide more comprehensive benchmarking capabilities and can be used to create and run benchmarks. * **Profiling tools**: Tools like Chrome DevTools, Firefox Developer Edition, or Node.js Inspector can provide detailed profiling information and help identify performance bottlenecks in your code. Keep in mind that the choice of benchmarking framework or tool depends on your specific use case, programming language, and project requirements.
Related benchmarks:
Object Deep Copy Test3
deep clone2
JavaScript spread operator vs cloneDeep
clone with change
new Recursive Clone VS other Cloning Methods
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?