Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
textContent vs append v10
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
append vs textContent
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<div id='one'></div>
Tests:
append
let theDiv = document.getElementById('one'), theDivText = document.createTextNode("one"); theDiv.textContent = ''; theDiv.append(theDivText);
textContent
let theDiv = document.getElementById('one'), theDivText = document.createTextNode("one"); theDiv.textContent = ''; theDiv.textContent = theDivText;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
append
textContent
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):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case that compares two approaches to updating the text content of an HTML element: `append` and `textContent`. The test creates a simple HTML structure with a single `<div>` element, generates a text node, and then updates the element's text content using both methods. **Options Compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **Append**: This method involves appending the generated text node to the end of the existing text content inside the `<div>` element. 2. **textContent**: This method directly sets the text content of the element without modifying its underlying DOM structure. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** **Append:** Pros: * Can be more efficient for large amounts of text data, as it only needs to append a single node. * Might be faster if the browser's text node cache is utilized effectively. Cons: * May lead to increased DOM tree complexity, potentially affecting rendering performance. * Requires additional resources (memory and processing power) to manage the appended nodes. **textContent:** Pros: * Directly sets the element's text content, which can lead to better caching and rendering performance. * Less resource-intensive compared to appending nodes. Cons: * May be slower if the browser needs to create a new text node or update the existing one. * Can result in increased DOM tree complexity if not implemented correctly. **Library/JavaScript Features Used** In this benchmark, no specific JavaScript library is used beyond the built-in `document` and `text` APIs. However, some older browsers might use alternative APIs for updating text content (e.g., `innerHTML` or `insertAdjacentText()`). **Special JS Feature/Syntax** No special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on the simplicity of the two approaches: appending a text node versus setting the element's `textContent`. **Other Alternatives** Other alternatives for updating an HTML element's text content include: 1. **innerHTML**: Sets the entire inner HTML of the element, including any child elements and attributes. 2. **insertAdjacentText()`: Inserts a text node at a specific position within the element's DOM tree. 3. **substringReplacement()`: Replaces a portion of the element's text content with new text. These alternatives might be used in different benchmark tests or scenarios, but are not relevant to this specific comparison between `append` and `textContent`.
Related benchmarks:
append vs appendChild + createTextNode
JS: append vs appendChild
textContent vs append v11
appendChild vs append
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?