Benchmark: textContent vs replaceChildren

HTML Preparation code:

<table>
  <tr>
    <td id="title">Title</td>
    <td id="url">URL</td>
  </tr>
</table>

Script Preparation code:

const title = document.getElementById('title');
const url = document.getElementById('url');

Tests:

textContent
title.textContent = "Edited Title"; url.textContent = "Edited URL";
replaceChildren
title.replaceChildren("Edited Title"); url.replaceChildren("Edited URL");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
textContent
replaceChildren

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:144.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/144.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 144 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
textContent	247218.5 Ops/sec
replaceChildren	238431.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: setting the `textContent` property of an HTML element versus using the `replaceChildren` method to replace its children.

**Options being compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **textContent**: This approach sets the text content of the element's innerHTML without modifying the element's structure.
2. **replaceChildren**: This approach replaces the entire child content of the element with a new set of nodes.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* **textContent**:
	+ Pros: Efficient, as it only updates the element's text content without affecting its structure or layout.
	+ Cons: Can lead to slow performance if the element has many children or large text content.
* **replaceChildren**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster for elements with complex structures or large amounts of data, as it replaces the entire child content at once.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than `textContent` due to the overhead of creating and appending new nodes.

**Library usage**

The benchmark uses none, as both approaches are built-in methods of the DOM API.

**Special JS features/syntax**

Neither approach uses any special JavaScript features or syntax. The test cases only involve basic DOM manipulation.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to modify this benchmark, you might consider adding other approaches, such as:

* **innerHTML**: Similar to `textContent`, but with the added overhead of parsing HTML strings.
* **slice() + appendChild()**: Replaces the element's child nodes by creating a new array and appending it to the element using `appendChild()`.

By comparing these alternative approaches, you could gain a better understanding of their performance characteristics and optimize your code for specific use cases.

In conclusion, this benchmark provides a simple yet informative comparison between two common DOM manipulation approaches. By analyzing the results and considering alternative methods, developers can make informed decisions about which approach to use in their own projects.

Related benchmarks:

textContent vs replaceChildren (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: textContent vs replaceChildren

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

textContent

replaceChildren

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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