Benchmark: innerhtml vs removechild

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="container"></div>

Script Preparation code:

var node = document.getElementById('container');

for(var i = 0; i < 30000; i++) node.appendChild(document.createElement('div'));

Tests:

innerHTML
var node = document.getElementById('container'); node.innerHTML = '';
removeChild
var node = document.getElementById('container'); while(node.firstChild) node.removeChild(node.firstChild)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
innerHTML
removeChild

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.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its results.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches for clearing an HTML element: `innerHTML` and `removeChild`. The test case starts by creating 30,000 elements and appending them to an HTML container using a loop. Then, it measures how long it takes to clear the container using each approach.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates a JavaScript function that:

1. Retrieves an HTML element with the ID "container" from the document.
2. Creates a for loop that appends 30,000 elements (div tags) to the retrieved node.
3. Sets up two test functions:
	* `innerHTML`: sets the innerHTML of the container to an empty string.
	* `removeChild`: uses a while loop to remove each child element from the container.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code creates an HTML page with a single div element, also with the ID "container".

**Benchmark Results**

There are two test cases: `innerHTML` and `removeChild`. The results show that:

* For the Chrome 85 browser on Windows Desktop:
	+ `removeChild`: approximately 42 million executions per second.
	+ `innerHTML`: approximately 32 million executions per second.

**Comparison of Approaches**

The benchmark compares two approaches for clearing an HTML element:

1. **`innerHTML`**: This approach sets the innerHTML of the container to an empty string, which clears all child elements. The test results show that this approach is slightly slower than using `removeChild`.
2. **`removeChild`**: This approach uses a while loop to remove each child element from the container, one by one. The test results show that this approach is faster than using `innerHTML`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **`innerHTML`**:
	* Pros: Simple and easy to implement.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient as `removeChild` if the container has a large number of child elements, since it requires setting an empty string, which can lead to DOM manipulation issues.
2. **`removeChild`**:
	* Pros: More efficient than `innerHTML`, especially for large containers with many child elements, since it avoids setting an empty string.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the need to iterate over and remove each child element individually.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following:

1. **DOM size**: If you have a small container with few child elements, `innerHTML` may be sufficient. However, if your container is large or has many child elements, `removeChild` might be a better choice.
2. **Performance requirements**: If you need extremely high performance, you may want to consider using a more specialized library or approach that takes advantage of WebAssembly or other low-level optimizations.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, here are some options:

1. **`querySelectorAll` and `forEach`**: You can use `querySelectorAll` to get all child elements and then use `forEach` to remove each element individually.
2. **`element.remove()`**: If your browser supports it, you can use the `remove()` method on individual elements instead of using a while loop or `removeChild()`.
3. **Custom implementation**: Depending on your specific requirements, you might consider implementing a custom approach that leverages WebAssembly, SIMD instructions, or other low-level optimizations.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs, and the best choice will depend on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

innerhtml vs removechild (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: innerHTML vs removeChild

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

innerHTML

removeChild

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):