Benchmark: stage1 collect varients v4

Script Preparation code:

var Z=()=>{},_=()=>document.createDocumentFragment(),$=(j)=>document.createTextNode(j),Q=(j)=>document.createElement(j),z=(j)=>j.cloneNode(!0),F=(j,q)=>q.appendChild(j),R=(j,q)=>q.insertBefore(j,q.firstChild),U=(j,q)=>q.parentNode.insertBefore(j,q.nextSibling),W=(j,q)=>(q.parentNode.replaceChild(j,q),j),C=(j,q)=>{new MutationObserver((A,B)=>{for(let I of A)for(let G of I.removedNodes)if(G.contains(j)){q(),B.disconnect();return}}).observe(document,{childList:!0,subtree:!0})};var P=Q("template"),Y=document.createTreeWalker(P),M=(j)=>{return P.innerHTML=j,P.content.firstChild},T=(j,q,A)=>{let B=Y,I={},G=q.length,J=0,H;B.currentNode=j;for(;J<G;J++){H=A[J];while(H--)B.nextNode();I[q[J]]=B.currentNode}return I},N=(j,q,A)=>{let B={},I=q.length,G=0,J,H=j,L;for(;G<I;G++){J=A[G];while(J--){L=H,H=H.firstChild||H.nextSibling;while(!H)L=L.parentNode,H=L.nextSibling}B[q[G]]=H}return B};var V={},X=(j)=>{let q="__"+j.type,A=j.target;while(A){if(A[q])return A[q](j);A=A.parentNode}},E=(j)=>{V[j]??=(document.addEventListener(j,X),!0)},S=(j)=>{V[j]=null,document.removeEventListener(j,X)};var w=(j)=>{let q={};return new Proxy({...j,on(A,B){return(q[A]??=[]).push(B),()=>{q[A]?.splice(q[A].indexOf(B)>>>0,1)}}},{set(A,B,I){return q[B]?.forEach((G)=>G(I,A[B])),A[B]=I,!0}})};
var h = M;
var collect = T; // original
var collect2 = N; // custom
var view=h('<div class=d1><span></span><div class=d2><span></span><div class=d3><span></span><div class=d4><span></span><div class=d5><span></span><div class=d6><span></span><div class=d7><span></span><div class=d8><span></span><div class=d9><span></span><div class=d10><span></span><div class=d11><!--></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>');
var view2=h('<div class=d1><span><div class=d2><span><div class=d3><span><div class=d4><span><div class=d5><span><div class=d6><span><div class=d7><span><div class=d8><span><div class=d9><span><div class=d10><span><div class=d11><!--></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div>');

Tests:

collect mixed depth
collect(view,['a','b','c','d'],[2,6,10,3])
collect2 mixed depth
collect2(view,['a','b','c','d'],[2,6,10,3])
collect nested
collect(view2,['a','b','c','d'],[2,6,10,3])
collect2 nested
collect2(view2,['a','b','c','d'],[2,6,10,3])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
collect mixed depth
collect2 mixed depth
collect nested
collect2 nested

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 12 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:136.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/136.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 136 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
collect mixed depth	1852457.6 Ops/sec
collect2 mixed depth	4394225.0 Ops/sec
collect nested	1839259.2 Ops/sec
collect2 nested	5506605.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 12 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark titled "stage1 collect varients v4" focuses on testing the performance of different JavaScript functions designed to traverse and manipulate the DOM (Document Object Model). It specifically compares two methods for collecting nodes from a DOM structure: `collect` and `collect2`, each applied to two types of DOM views: `view` and `view2`.

### Summary of the Benchmark Cases

#### 1. **Function Definitions**
- **`collect(view, ['a','b','c','d'], [2,6,10,3])`**: This function presumably collects elements based on the specified depths in a mixed structure defined by `view`.
- **`collect2(view, ['a','b','c','d'], [2,6,10,3])`**: Similar to `collect`, but uses an alternative method for traversing the DOM.
- **`collect(view2, ['a','b','c','d'], [2,6,10,3])`**: This function operates on a more deeply nested structure defined by `view2`.
- **`collect2(view2, ['a','b','c','d'], [2,6,10,3])`**: An alternative method applied to the deeply nested structure.

#### 2. **Considerations for Each Method**
- **Method `collect`**:
  - Uses a straightforward approach to traverse and gather nodes from the DOM structure.
  - Pros: May be easier to understand and use for simpler DOMs.
  - Cons: Potentially less efficient for complex structures or deeper trees, as it might not handle edge cases optimally.

- **Method `collect2`**:
  - Employs a custom traversal method that is likely designed to handle more complex DOM structures better.
  - Pros: Optimized for more complex DOM structures, potentially offering better performance in nested scenarios.
  - Cons: Complexity of implementation might make it less maintainable or harder to debug.

### Sample Structures
- **`view`** is a moderately nested DOM structure composed of several `<div>` and `<span>` elements.
- **`view2`** features a deeper nesting of those same elements, likely increasing the complexity for traversal functions.

### Performance Results Interpretation
The benchmark results quantify the performance of these methods as executions per second. Key observations include:
- `collect2` executed on `view2` achieved the highest performance (`5506605.0 executions/second`), suggesting better optimization for deep DOM traversal in comparison to its counterparts.
- `collect` showed lower execution rates across all tests, particularly highlighting that as complexity increased (moving from `view` to `view2`), its performance degraded more significantly.

### Other Alternatives
In addition to the methods tested, there are several alternatives developers can consider when working with DOM manipulation:

1. **`Document.querySelector` / `Document.querySelectorAll`**:
   - Built-in DOM methods for selecting one or multiple elements based on CSS selectors. They often perform well and are straightforward to use.
   
2. **Libraries (e.g., jQuery)**:
   - Libraries like jQuery abstract away many of the complexities of DOM manipulation and provide efficient querying and element handling methods.
   - Pros: Simplifies coding and improves cross-browser compatibility.
   - Cons: Introduces additional overhead due to library size and potentially unnecessary complexity if only basic features are used.

3. **Native Fetch and Update Methods**:
   - Utilizing native APIs like `replaceChild`, `removeChild`, and other DOM methods allows fine control over performance and structure manipulation.

4. **Virtual DOM Libraries (e.g., React)**:
   - Implementing libraries that use a virtual representation of the DOM can enhance performance by minimizing direct DOM manipulations and recalculating only the necessary changes.

### Conclusion
Overall, the benchmark showcases the efficiency of different approaches to collecting nodes from DOM structures in JavaScript. The `collect2` methods outperform the standard `collect` variant, particularly in nested scenarios, emphasizing the importance of method selection based on the complexity of the DOM structure being manipulated. Evaluating the context and anticipated scenarios will aid developers in choosing the most effective DOM traversal strategies for their applications.

Related benchmarks:

stage1 collect varients v4 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: collect mixed depth vs collect2 mixed depth vs collect nested vs collect2 nested

Created: 12 days ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

collect mixed depth

collect2 mixed depth

collect nested

collect2 nested

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 12 days ago):