Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Create versus clone element
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Create element vs Clone element
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Create element
Clone element
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years 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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=536878" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Clone element
971/s
Create element
597/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Clone element
971 Ops/sec
Create element
597 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
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
createElement vs cloneNode v3
createElement vs deep cloneNode vs cloneNode
cloneNode vs createElement
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?