Benchmark: innerHTML vs replaceChildren ios

HTML Preparation code:

<table>
  <tr>
    <td id="title">Title</td>
  </tr>
</table>

Script Preparation code:

const title = document.getElementById('title');

Tests:

innerHTML
title.replaceChildren(document.createTextNode("Edited Title"));
replaceChildren
title.innerHTML = ""; title.appendChild(document.createTextNode("Edited Title"));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
innerHTML
replaceChildren

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for updating the content of an HTML table element: using `innerHTML` or replacing its children with a new text node.

**Script Preparation Code**
```javascript
const title = document.getElementById('title');
```
This line retrieves a reference to the `<td>` element with the ID "title" from the DOM. The variable `title` will be used to store this reference.

**Html Preparation Code**
```html
<table>
  <tr>
    <td id="title">Title</td>
  </tr>
</table>
```
This HTML snippet creates a simple table with one row and one cell, where the cell contains the text "Title". The `id` attribute of this cell is set to "title", which matches the variable name in the JavaScript code.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **innerHTML**
```javascript
title.replaceChildren(document.createTextNode("Edited Title"));
```
This line uses the `replaceChildren` method to replace all child nodes of the `<td>` element with a new text node containing the string "Edited Title". However, this is not the correct syntax for using `innerHTML`. The correct syntax would be:
```javascript
title.innerHTML = "Edited Title";
```
The original code will likely cause an error or unexpected behavior.

2. **replaceChildren**
```javascript
title.appendChild(document.createTextNode("Edited Title"));
```
This line appends a new text node containing the string "Edited Title" to the end of the `<td>` element's child nodes using the `appendChild` method. This is the correct way to use `replaceChildren`.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

* The `innerHTML` approach has an execution time of 386,644 executions per second on a Chrome 113 browser running on Windows.
* The `replaceChildren` approach has an execution time of 118,635 executions per second on the same browser and platform.

**Analysis**

Based on the benchmark results, it appears that using `innerHTML` is significantly slower than using `replaceChildren`. This is likely because `innerHTML` involves parsing and updating the DOM tree, whereas `replaceChildren` is a more efficient method for replacing child nodes.

The pros of using `replaceChildren` include:

* Faster execution times
* More control over the replacement process

However, there are also some cons to consider:

* May require additional code to handle edge cases or specific use cases
* Can be less intuitive than using `innerHTML`

In contrast, using `innerHTML` has a more straightforward syntax but is generally slower.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There is no explicit mention of any libraries in the benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may have optimized implementations of these methods or other variations.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

innerHTML vs replaceChildren ios (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: innerHTML vs replaceChildren

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

innerHTML

replaceChildren

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):