Benchmark: Compration of create nodes

Script Preparation code:

var data = `
<div>
  <h1>wert</h1>
  <h2>wert</h2>
  <h3>wert</h3>
  <h5>wert</h5>
  <p>gasdf</p>
  <p>gasdf</p>
  <p>gasdf</p>
  <p>gasdf</p>
  <p>gasdf</p>
  <p>gasdf</p>
  <p>gasdf</p>
  <p>gasdf</p>
  <p>gasdf</p>
  <p>gasdf</p>
  <p>gasdf</p>
  <p>gasdf</p>
</div>
`

var insertDom = (string) => {
  const t = document.createElement('template')
  t.innerHTML = string
  return t.content
}
const createInsertDom2 = (string) => {
  const res = insertDom(string)
  return () => {
    const t = document.createElement('template')
    t.innerHTML = string
    return res.cloneNode(true)
  }
}
var insertDom2 = createInsertDom2()

Tests:

1
insertDom(data)
2
insertDom2(data)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 12) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Chrome/119.0.6045.193 Mobile DuckDuckGo/5 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 119 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1	18747.1 Ops/sec
2	55512.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for creating nodes in JavaScript: `insertDom` and `createInsertDom2`. The benchmark definition includes a script preparation code, which defines two functions:

1. `insertDom`: takes a string as input and returns the created DOM node.
2. `createInsertDom2`: takes a string as input, calls `insertDom`, and returns another function that clones the returned DOM node.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these two approaches:

1. **Direct DOM creation**: `insertDom` creates the DOM node directly and returns it.
2. **Indirect DOM creation with cloning**: `createInsertDom2` creates the DOM node using `insertDom`, but then clones the node using the returned function.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. **Direct DOM creation (insertDom)**:
	* Pros: Simple, efficient, and may be faster since it avoids an extra cloning step.
	* Cons: May require more memory allocation for the created nodes, especially if the input string is large.
2. **Indirect DOM creation with cloning (createInsertDom2)**:
	* Pros: Reduces memory allocation by reusing existing nodes, which can be beneficial for large inputs or when multiple nodes need to be created.
	* Cons: Introduces an extra step of cloning, which may increase overhead and slow down performance.

**Library and its purpose**

The `insertDom` function uses the `document.createElement` method, which is a part of the DOM API. This method creates a new HTML element and returns it as a DOM node.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. The code only uses standard JavaScript constructs like functions, variables, and the `document.createElement` method.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to write this benchmark from scratch, you might consider alternative approaches:

1. **Using a template engine**: Instead of creating DOM nodes manually, you could use a template engine like Handlebars or Mustache to generate HTML templates. This would eliminate the need for manual DOM creation and cloning.
2. **Using a DOM builder library**: There are libraries like DOMBuilder or jsdom that provide a higher-level API for working with DOM nodes. These libraries might simplify the benchmarking process and reduce the number of options being compared.

Overall, this benchmark provides a straightforward comparison between two approaches to creating nodes in JavaScript. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, you can make informed decisions about which method to use in your own projects.

Related benchmarks:

Compration of create nodes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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