Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
window.getComputedStyle vs. clientHeight
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
getComputedStyle vs className
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<div id="foo"><div style="height: 100px" /></div>
Tests:
getComputedStyle
var i = 3000; while (i--) { check('foo'); } function check(element) { return parseFloat(window.getComputedStyle(document.getElementById(element)).height); }
className
var i = 3000; while (i--) { check('foo'); } function check(element) { return document.getElementById(element).clientHeight; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
getComputedStyle
className
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 being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark defines two test cases: `getComputedStyle` and `className`. Both tests aim to measure the performance of getting the height of an HTML element using different approaches. 1. **getComputedStyle**: This approach uses the `window.getComputedStyle` method to get the computed style of an HTML element, specifically its `height` property. 2. **className**: This approach uses the `clientHeight` property directly on the HTML element (`document.getElementById('foo').clientHeight`). **Options Compared** The two approaches being compared are: * Using the `window.getComputedStyle` method to get the computed style of an HTML element * Directly accessing the `clientHeight` property of the HTML element **Pros and Cons** 1. **getComputedStyle**: * Pros: This approach provides more accurate results, as it takes into account any CSS styles applied to the element, including those set by the browser's layout engine. * Cons: It can be slower due to the additional overhead of accessing the computed style property. 2. **className**: * Pros: This approach is generally faster, as it only accesses a single property of the element (clientHeight) and does not require any additional computations or lookups. * Cons: It may not provide accurate results if the `height` CSS rule is set to an invalid value or if the browser's layout engine decides to use a different value. **Library and Syntax** The test case uses the following JavaScript features: * `window.getComputedStyle`: This method is part of the W3C Standard, but it is not supported by all browsers. Chrome supports this method, which is why it was used in the benchmark. * `document.getElementById` and `clientHeight`: These are standard DOM API methods. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** The test case does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would affect its interpretation. **Other Alternatives** Alternative approaches to measuring performance might include: * Using a CSS library like jQuery or a custom solution to dynamically set the element's height. * Using a different DOM API method, such as `getBoundingClientRect()` to get the element's bounding rectangle. * Using a benchmarking framework that provides built-in support for measuring performance and handling variations in browser behavior. Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely require significant changes to the test case code and setup.
Related benchmarks:
clientHeight vs offsetHeight vs window.getComputedStyle
clientHeight vs getComputedStyle().height
clientHeight vs getComputedStyle().height no parse float
clientHeight + clientWidth vs getComutedStyle()
clientWidth vs offsetWidth vs window.getComputedStyle v2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?