Benchmark: styleProperty - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<div>
 <img class="js-image"/>
</div>

Tests:

set-transform
const imageToScale = document.querySelector('.js-image'); imageToScale.style.transform = `scale(${0.5})`;
style-propery
const imageToScale = document.querySelector('.js-image'); imageToScale.style['--motion-scale'] = "0.5";;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
set-transform
style-propery

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/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
set-transform	2127456.2 Ops/sec
style-propery	11903650.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what is being tested, compared options, pros and cons, library usage, special JS features or syntax, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON defines a benchmark named "styleProperty". The benchmark has two test cases:

1. `set-transform`: This test case uses the `document.querySelector` method to select an HTML element with the class `js-image`, and then sets its `transform` CSS property using the `.style` property.
2. `style-property`: This test case is similar to the first one, but instead of setting a JavaScript property, it directly sets a CSS custom property named `--motion-scale` on the selected HTML element.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. Setting a CSS property (`transform`) using JavaScript (`document.querySelector.style.transform = "scale(0.5)"`)
2. Directly setting a CSS custom property (`--motion-scale`) using JavaScript (`imageToScale.style['--motion-scale'] = "0.5"`)

**Pros and Cons**

Setting a CSS property using JavaScript has the following pros:

* Can be more flexible, as it allows for dynamic manipulation of styles.
* Can be used in conjunction with other JavaScript features.

However, setting a CSS custom property directly may have some cons:

* Can lead to vendor prefixing issues if not handled correctly.
* May require additional processing on the browser side to handle custom properties.

**Library Usage**

In both test cases, the `document.querySelector` method is used to select an HTML element. This suggests that the benchmark is testing the performance of different browsers' DOM query implementations. The `style` property access is also a part of this.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

Neither of the provided benchmarks uses any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's standard for modern JavaScript development (ES5+).

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark likely aims to compare the performance differences between browsers when applying styles using different methods. This could be useful for identifying areas where specific browsers may have performance optimizations or limitations.

**Alternatives**

If you were to create a similar benchmark, you might consider adding additional test cases that explore other aspects of style application, such as:

* Using CSS animations or transitions
* Applying styles using vendor-prefixed properties (e.g., `webkitTransform`)
* Setting multiple styles on an element at once

These additions could provide more comprehensive insights into the performance characteristics of different browsers' DOM query and styling implementations.

Related benchmarks:

styleProperty (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: set-transform vs style-propery

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

set-transform

style-propery

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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