Benchmark: Set textContent vs append

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>

Previous results

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

Test name	Executions per second
textContent	5922532.5 Ops/sec
append	6752924.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down 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:

Set textContent vs append (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: textContent vs append

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

textContent

append

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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