Benchmark: Test: CSS calc() with var() - 01

HTML Preparation code:

<section id="section"></section>

Script Preparation code:

const section = document.getElementById("section");

section.style.setProperty('--translation', '100');
section.style.setProperty('--translationPx', '100px');
section.style.setProperty('--translationPercentage', '100%');


for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
    const newDiv = document.createElement("div");
    const text = document.createTextNode(`${i}`);
    newDiv.appendChild(text);
    section.appendChild(newDiv);
}

var nodes = document.querySelectorAll("div");

Tests:

var(unitless) + calc() + %
for (var i = 0; i < nodes.length; i++) { nodes[i].style = "transform: translateY(calc(var(--translation) * 1%))" }
var(%)
for (var i = 0; i < nodes.length; i++) { nodes[i].style = "transform: translateY(var(--translationPercent))" }
Percentage
for (var i = 0; i < nodes.length; i++) { nodes[i].style = "transform: translateY(100%)" }
var(unitless) + calc() + px
for (var i = 0; i < nodes.length; i++) { nodes[i].style = "transform: translateY(calc(var(--translation) * 1px))" }
px
for (var i = 0; i < nodes.length; i++) { nodes[i].style = "transform: translateY(100px)" }
var(px)
for (var i = 0; i < nodes.length; i++) { nodes[i].style = "transform: translateY(var(--translationPx))" }

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 9 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 9 runs

Percentage

1K/s

var(%)

1K/s

var(unitless) + calc() + %

1K/s

var(unitless) + calc() + px

1K/s

var(px)

897/s

Fastest: Percentage (1.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Percentage: 1,385 ops/sec
• px: 1,302 ops/sec
• var(%) : 1,238 ops/sec
• var(unitless) + calc() + %: 1,217 ops/sec
• var(unitless) + calc() + px: 1,136 ops/sec
• var(px) : 897 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
var(unitless) + calc() + %
var(%)
Percentage
var(unitless) + calc() + px
px
var(px)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

var(unitless) + calc() + %

2K/s

var(%)

1K/s

Percentage

1K/s

var(unitless) + calc() + px

851/s

832/s

var(px)

353/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ var(unitless) + calc() + %	1,513 Ops/sec
var(%)	1,488 Ops/sec
Percentage	1,291 Ops/sec
var(unitless) + calc() + px	851 Ops/sec
px	832 Ops/sec
var(px)	353 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of different approaches for calculating translations using CSS calc() and var() functions.

**Benchmark Definitions**

There are six individual test cases:

1. **var(unitless) + calc() + px**: This test uses the calc() function with a unitless value and multiplies it by 1px.
2. **var(px) + calc() + %**: This test uses the calc() function with a px value multiplied by 1%.
3. **var(%) + calc() + px**: This test uses the calc() function with a percentage value multiplied by 1px.
4. **var(unitless) + calc() + %**: This test uses the calc() function with a unitless value multiplied by 1%.
5. **var(%) + calc() + %**: This test uses the calc() function with two percentage values.
6. **var(unitless) + calc() + px**: This test uses the calc() function with a unitless value and multiplies it by 1px.

**Comparison of Approaches**

The main difference between these approaches is how they calculate the translation values:

*   `calc()` functions allow you to perform complex arithmetic calculations, including multiplication and division. They also provide more precise control over the calculation process.
*   `var()` functions, on the other hand, are used for storing and retrieving values that can be accessed throughout a JavaScript program using the `var` keyword.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

*   **Calc()**: Pros - More precise control over calculations. Cons - May be slower due to the additional arithmetic operations involved.
*   **Var()**: Pros - Faster execution, as it only involves simple value lookup. Cons - Less precise control over calculations.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, the `var()` function is used in all test cases except for one that uses the `calc()` function. The `var()` function is likely being used here to provide a faster and more efficient way of calculating translation values without sacrificing too much precision.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The use of the `calc()` function and the `var()` function indicates that the test case is taking advantage of JavaScript's advanced calculation capabilities, specifically designed for handling complex arithmetic operations. The `calc()` function allows you to express calculations using a simple syntax (`value1 operator value2`), making it easier to write code that performs precise calculations.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives could be considered in terms of optimizing the benchmark or exploring different approaches:

*   **Using a dedicated CSS library**: Some libraries, like jQuery or React, have optimized versions of the `calc()` function for better performance.
*   **Implementing custom arithmetic functions**: You can create your own custom arithmetic functions that provide more control over calculations and potentially faster execution times.
*   **Exploring different calculation methods**: There are other calculation methods available in CSS, such as using percentages or ems. You could investigate whether these alternatives offer better performance for certain use cases.

**Conclusion**

The test case highlights the trade-offs between precision and speed when it comes to calculating translation values using `calc()` and `var()` functions. By choosing the right approach based on your specific requirements, you can optimize performance while maintaining acceptable levels of accuracy.

Test: CSS calc() with var() - 01 (version: 0)

Test difference in performance with calc() and var() functions compared with simple units. Test on unitless, percentage and absolute values.

Comparing performance of: `var(unitless) + calc() + % vs var(%) vs Percentage vs var(unitless) + calc() + px vs px vs var(px)`

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

var(unitless) + calc() + %

var(%)

Percentage

var(unitless) + calc() + px

px

var(px)

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 9 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 9 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Test: CSS calc() with var() - 01 (version: 0)

Test difference in performance with calc() and var() functions compared with simple units. Test on unitless, percentage and absolute values.

Comparing performance of: var(unitless) + calc() + % vs var(%) vs Percentage vs var(unitless) + calc() + px vs px vs var(px)

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

var(unitless) + calc() + %

var(%)

Percentage

var(unitless) + calc() + px

px

var(px)

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 9 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 9 runs

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: `var(unitless) + calc() + % vs var(%) vs Percentage vs var(unitless) + calc() + px vs px vs var(px)`