Benchmark: textContent vs replaceChildrenñl2

HTML Preparation code:

<table>
  <tr>
    <td id="title"><div><div><div>asd sad sa dsad</div></div></div></td>
    <td id="url"><div><div><div>asd sad sa dsad</div></div></div></td>
  </tr>
</table>

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

textContent
title.textContent = ""; url.textContent = "";
replaceChildren
title.replaceChildren(); url.replaceChildren();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
textContent
replaceChildren

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

textContent

2.1M/s

replaceChildren

1.7M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ textContent	2,069,336 Ops/sec
replaceChildren	1,729,025 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test is comparing the performance of two approaches for updating text content on HTML elements: `textContent` and `replaceChildren`.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`textContent`**: This method updates the text content of an element by setting its `textContent` property to a new string.
2. **`replaceChildren`**: This method replaces the child nodes of an element with new ones, and then updates the `textContent` property of the resulting node.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`textContent`**:
	+ Pros: Fast and efficient, as it only updates the text content without modifying the DOM.
	+ Cons: May not work correctly if the element has other properties or attributes that are not text content.
* **`replaceChildren`**:
	+ Pros: Can be used to update both text content and other properties or attributes of an element.
	+ Cons: Slower than `textContent`, as it involves modifying the DOM.

**Library Used**

There is no specific library being tested in this benchmark. The test only uses native JavaScript features.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None, as the test only uses standard JavaScript features without any special syntax or features like async/await, callbacks, etc.

**Other Considerations**

When deciding between `textContent` and `replaceChildren`, it's essential to consider the specific requirements of your use case. If you only need to update text content, `textContent` is likely a better choice for performance reasons. However, if you need to update other properties or attributes of an element, `replaceChildren` might be a better option.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few:

* Using `innerHTML` instead of `textContent` (though this is generally discouraged due to security concerns)
* Using a library like jQuery to simplify DOM updates
* Using Web Workers or other parallel execution techniques to optimize performance

Keep in mind that the choice of approach will depend on your specific requirements and constraints.

textContent vs replaceChildrenñl2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `textContent vs replaceChildren`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

textContent

replaceChildren

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

textContent vs replaceChildrenñl2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: textContent vs replaceChildren

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

textContent

replaceChildren

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `textContent vs replaceChildren`