Benchmark: weweewdwr4 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function createExample() {
  var el = document.createElement('div');
  el.className = 'class-1 class-2 class-3';
  el.id = 'example';
  el.textContent = 'Test';
  return el;
}

Tests:

C1
var ex = createExample(); var i = 1000; while (i--) { var e = ex.cloneNode(true); }
C2
var ex = createExample(); var Clone = Node.prototype.cloneNode.bind(ex); var i = 1000; while (i--) { var e = Clone(true); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
C1
C2

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/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
C1	2075.4 Ops/sec
C2	2048.7 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 benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. Cloning an element using its `cloneNode(true)` method.
2. Creating a new element from scratch.

The script preparation code provides a reusable function `createExample()` that creates a new `div` element with some predefined classes and text content.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* **C1**: Cloning the original element using `cloneNode(true)`. This approach creates a deep copy of the element, including all its child nodes.
* **C2**: Creating a new element from scratch using an existing method, `Node.prototype.cloneNode.bind(ex)`. In this case, the `bind()` method is used to bind the `cloneNode()` function to the original element (`ex`), creating a new function that can be called without explicitly referencing the original element.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **C1 (Cloning)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Creates a deep copy of the element, including child nodes.
		- Can be faster for large elements or complex structures.
	+ Cons:
		- May incur overhead due to recursive cloning of child nodes.
		- Can lead to performance issues if not implemented correctly (e.g., creating multiple copies of the same node).
* **C2 (Creating from scratch)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Does not create multiple copies of the same node.
		- Can be faster for simple elements or small structures.
	+ Cons:
		- Creates a new element, which can lead to memory overhead if not done efficiently.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses the `Node.prototype.cloneNode()` method, which is part of the DOM API. This method creates a shallow copy of the specified node or a selection of nodes. The `bind()` method is used to create a new function that binds the original element (`ex`) to the `cloneNode()` function.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark definition.

**Other Considerations**

When creating benchmarks, it's essential to consider factors like:

* Browser and device compatibility
* Network latency and overhead (if testing online)
* System resource constraints (e.g., CPU, memory, disk space)

In addition to the provided benchmark definition, other alternatives for measuring performance can include:

* Using a profiling tool to analyze the execution time of individual functions or methods.
* Implementing multiple iterations or variations of each test case to better understand performance characteristics.
* Using external libraries or tools that provide built-in benchmarking capabilities.

Keep in mind that the choice of benchmarking approach and tool depends on the specific use case, system resources, and desired outcome.

Related benchmarks:

weweewdwr4 (version: 0)

Compare cloning element vs creating a new one

Comparing performance of: C1 vs C2

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

C1

C2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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