Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Set textContent vs append
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
textContent vs append
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var a = document.createElement('a');
Tests:
textContent
a.textContent = "Text";
append
a.append("Text");
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
textContent
append
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/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/135.0.0.0
Browser/OS:
Chrome 135 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=600218" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
append
6.8M/s
textContent
5.9M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
append
6,752,924 Ops/sec
textContent
5,922,532 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is comparing two approaches to set text content on an HTML element: 1. `textContent = "Text";` 2. `a.append("Text");` This benchmark aims to measure which approach is faster, more efficient, or has better performance characteristics. **Options Compared** There are two options being compared: A) Setting `textContent` using the dot notation (`a.textContent = "Text";`) B) Appending a string to an element using the `append()` method (`a.append("Text");`) **Pros and Cons of Each Approach:** 1. **Set textContent (A)**: * Pros: Fast, lightweight, and widely supported. * Cons: May not work with certain elements or in older browsers that don't support this feature. 2. **Append (B)**: * Pros: Works with most elements, including HTML 5 elements like `span` or `div`. * Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of appending a string. **Library and Purpose** In this benchmark, there is no specific library being used. However, it's likely that the code snippets are using built-in JavaScript methods and DOM APIs. **Special JS Feature/Syntax (None)** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. **Other Considerations** When measuring performance between these two approaches, we should also consider factors like: * Browser support: Which browsers support `textContent` and `append()` methods? * Element type: Are the elements being used compatible with both approaches? * Performance implications: Does the order of operations (e.g., setting `textContent` vs. appending) affect performance? **Alternatives** Other alternatives to compare in this benchmark could include: * Using a different data structure, like an array or string, for testing. * Adding more elements or complex content to measure the impact on performance. * Comparing the performance of other methods, such as `innerHTML` or `outerHTML`. Some potential variations of this benchmark could include: * Measuring the performance of setting `textContent` with different text lengths or types (e.g., emojis). * Testing the performance of appending strings using different characters or encoding schemes. * Adding a delay between operations to simulate network latency or other delays. By considering these alternatives, we can create a more comprehensive and informative benchmark that helps users understand the trade-offs between different approaches.
Related benchmarks
createTextNode vs textContent vs innerText
createTextNode vs textContent vs innerText vs append
createTextNode vs textContent vs innerText vs append vs new Text
createTextNode vs textContent vs innerText vs innerHTML
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?