Benchmark: Compare innerHtml and InsertAdjacentHtml

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="testdiv">
  <div class="unique">test</div>
</div>

Script Preparation code:

var i, imax;
var div = document.getElementById('testdiv');

Tests:

insertAdjacent
div.insertAdjacentHTML('beforeend',`<div class="unique">test</div>` )
innerHTML
var newDiv = `<div class="unique">test</div>`; div.innerHTML = newDiv;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
insertAdjacent
innerHTML

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmarking test case and explain what is being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test compares two JavaScript methods for inserting HTML content into a document: `insertAdjacentHTML` and `innerHTML`. The goal is to determine which method is faster and more efficient in terms of performance.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **`insertAdjacentHTML`**: This method inserts an HTML string at the specified position in the element.
2. **`innerHTML`**: This method sets the inner HTML content of an element using a string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

*   **`insertAdjacentHTML`**:
    *   Pros:
        *   More efficient, as it doesn't require parsing or escaping the HTML string.
        *   Can be faster for large HTML strings.
        *   Reduces the risk of XSS attacks since the HTML is inserted without being executed by the browser.
    *   Cons:
        *   Requires a specific API call (insertAdjacentHTML) that might not be supported by older browsers.
*   **`innerHTML`**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Widely supported across most modern browsers.
        *   Simple and straightforward to use.
    *   Cons:
        *   Can lead to performance issues if the HTML string is large, as it needs to be parsed and processed by the browser.
        *   Vulnerable to XSS attacks since user-inputted content can be executed by the browser.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, the use of `insertAdjacentHTML` might imply that modern browsers support this API, which is often part of the Web APIs provided by HTML5.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The test does not utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ECMAScript and modern browser capabilities. It focuses on comparing two common methods for inserting HTML content into a document.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to benchmark other alternatives, some options might include:

*   **`createElement` + `innerHTML`**: Creates a new element using the `createElement` method and sets its inner HTML content.
*   **`DOMParser`**: Parses an HTML string and creates a DOM tree that can be inserted into the document.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide significant performance benefits over the original methods being compared.

Related benchmarks:

Compare innerHtml and InsertAdjacentHtml (version: 1)

Compare innerHtml and InsertAdjacentHtml

Comparing performance of: insertAdjacent vs innerHTML

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

insertAdjacent

innerHTML

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):