Benchmark: Create versus clone element

Tests:

Create element
for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const div = document.createElement('div'); }
Clone element
const div = document.createElement('div'); for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const div2 = div.cloneNode(); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Create element
Clone element

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Create element	597.0 Ops/sec
Clone element	970.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the explanation into smaller sections to make it easier to understand.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark definition. It defines two test cases: "Create element" and "Clone element". The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between creating an HTML element using `document.createElement()` versus cloning an existing element using `cloneNode()`.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared in this benchmark:

1. **Create Element**: Using `document.createElement()` to create a new HTML element.
2. **Clone Element**: Cloning an existing element using `cloneNode()`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Create Element:**

Pros:

* More efficient for creating new elements, as it avoids cloning an existing element.
* May be faster for large numbers of elements, since it doesn't incur the overhead of cloning.

Cons:

* Requires a separate allocation for each new element, which can lead to memory fragmentation and increased garbage collection.

**Clone Element:**

Pros:

* Reuses the existing element's resources, such as its DOM node and content, reducing memory allocations.
* May be faster when dealing with small numbers of elements, since it avoids the overhead of creating a new element.

Cons:

* Inefficient for large numbers of elements, since cloning an element can lead to increased memory usage and garbage collection.

**Library**

In this benchmark, the `cloneNode()` method is used from the Web APIs specification. The purpose of this library is to create a shallow copy of an existing element, including its children, attributes, and content.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of `cloneNode()` requires a supporting browser implementation.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to implement a similar benchmark, you could consider using other methods for creating and cloning elements, such as:

* Using a library like jQuery's `$()` function or Lodash's `clone()` function.
* Implementing a custom clone function that manually copies the element's properties and children.
* Using WebAssembly or native code for performance-critical elements.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely have different trade-offs in terms of complexity, memory usage, and browser support.

Related benchmarks:

Create versus clone element (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Create element vs Clone element

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Create element

Clone element

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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