Benchmark: weweewdwr41 - 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 scope = { ex: createExample() } var i = 10000; while (i--) { var e = scope.ex.cloneNode(true); }
C2
var scope = { ex: createExample() } scope.Clone = Node.prototype.cloneNode.bind(scope.ex); var i = 10000; while (i--) { var e = scope.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	250.5 Ops/sec
C2	240.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to clone an HTML element:

1. **Cloning using `cloneNode`**: This approach uses the `cloneNode` method on the original element (`scope.ex`) and passes `true` as an argument, which means the cloned node will be a deep clone (i.e., it will include all the child nodes).
2. **Creating a new instance of the element's prototype**: This approach creates a new instance of the same type of element (e.g., `div`) using the `Node.prototype.cloneNode` method, bound to the original element (`scope.ex`). The cloned node is created by calling `cloneNode` on this new instance, passing `true` as an argument for a deep clone.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Cloning using `cloneNode`**: Pros:
	+ Faster, since it's a built-in method that can be optimized by the browser.
	+ Easier to implement, as it's a single line of code.
* Cons:
	+ Can create large amounts of garbage if not properly cleaned up, leading to memory issues.
	+ May not work correctly for all types of elements (e.g., some custom elements).
* **Creating a new instance of the element's prototype**: Pros:
	+ More control over the cloning process, allowing for more flexibility and customization.
	+ Can be safer than `cloneNode`, as it avoids creating unnecessary garbage.
* Cons:
	+ Slower, since it involves creating a new object instance.
	+ Requires more code and setup.

**Library usage:**

None of the provided benchmark definitions use any external libraries. However, if we were to analyze the HTML preparation code (`createExample` function), it's clear that this is a custom JavaScript function that returns an element with some attributes and text content.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmark definitions. They're straightforward examples of cloning elements using built-in methods or creating new instances of the element's prototype.

The results provided show that Chrome 126, running on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 desktop device, performed slightly better (slightly faster executions per second) for the `C1` benchmark, which uses the `cloneNode` method.

**Alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to cloning elements or optimizing this process, here are some options:

* Using a library like jQuery's `clone()` method
* Implementing a custom cloning mechanism using Web Workers or WebAssembly
* Using a different approach, such as serializing the element's attributes and creating a new element with those values

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

weweewdwr41 (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):