Benchmark: createTextNode vs cloneNode asdf not deep

Tests:

createElement
var list = [], n = 0; while(true) { n++; list.push(document.createTextNode('div')); if(n===100000) break; }
cloneNode
var list = [], n = 0, node = document.createTextNode('div'); while(true) { n++; list.push(node.cloneNode()); if(n===100000) break; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
createElement
cloneNode

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for creating new DOM elements: `createTextNode` vs `cloneNode`. Specifically, it tests which approach is faster when creating an array of text nodes and inserting them into the DOM.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **createTextNode**: This method creates a new text node with the specified content.
2. **cloneNode**: This method creates a deep copy of an existing node, which can be used to create new text nodes.

**Pros and Cons**

* `createTextNode`:
	+ Pros: Creates a new text node with the specified content, which is a lightweight object that doesn't require additional DOM parsing.
	+ Cons: May not be as efficient as `cloneNode` for large datasets, as it requires multiple DOM operations to create and append each node.
* `cloneNode`:
	+ Pros: Creates a deep copy of an existing node, which can be used to create new text nodes efficiently. Also, it avoids the overhead of creating and appending individual text nodes.
	+ Cons: Creates a clone of an entire DOM node, including all its child nodes, which may not be necessary for text-only content.

**Library and Purpose**

In both test cases, no specific library is used. However, the `cloneNode` method relies on the DOM API to create a deep copy of the original node.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

* **createDocumentFragment**: This method creates a document fragment that can be used to create new text nodes efficiently. However, it requires more complex setup and may not be as straightforward as `cloneNode`.
* **template literals**: Some modern JavaScript engines support template literals, which allow you to create strings with embedded expressions using backticks (`). However, this approach is not relevant to creating DOM elements.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The benchmark preparation code is empty, which means that the test cases will be run without any additional setup or initialization.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **createElement**: This test case uses `createTextNode` to create an array of text nodes and inserts them into the DOM.
2. **cloneNode**: This test case uses `cloneNode` to create an array of cloned nodes (which are essentially text nodes) and inserts them into the DOM.

**Latest Benchmark Result**

The latest benchmark result shows that `cloneNode` is faster than `createTextNode`, with an execution rate of 97.41476440429688 per second compared to 54.478450775146484 per second for `createElement`. This suggests that `cloneNode` is a more efficient approach for creating text nodes in this specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

createTextNode vs cloneNode asdf not deep (version: 0)

Faster way to create new dom elements before insertion

Comparing performance of: createElement vs cloneNode

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

createElement

cloneNode

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):