Benchmark: createElement vs cloneNode modified

Tests:

createElement
var list = [], n = 0; while(true) { n++; list.push(document.createElement('div')); if(n===100000) break; }
cloneNode
var list = [], n = 0, node = document.createElement('div'); node.setAttribute('class', 'hover-highlight-td focus-highlight-td'); node.setAttribute('tabindex', "1"); node.addEventListener('touchstart', function(e) { e.target.focus(); }); while(true) { n++; list.push(node.cloneNode(false)); if(n===100000) break; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
createElement
cloneNode

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches for creating new DOM elements:

1. `createElement`: Creating a new element using the `document.createElement()` method.
2. `cloneNode`: Creating a copy of an existing element using the `node.cloneNode(false)` method, and then modifying it.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches in creating a large number of DOM elements. The test cases are designed to measure the time taken by each approach to create 100,000 elements.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. `createElement`:
	* Pros:
		+ Creates a new, empty element with no existing content.
		+ May be more efficient for creating simple elements with minimal attributes.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more CPU cycles to create a new element from scratch.
2. `cloneNode`:
	* Pros:
		+ Creates a copy of an existing element, which may be faster since it doesn't require creating a new element from scratch.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be suitable for elements with complex attributes or content.
		+ Requires additional memory to store the cloned node.

**Library Used:**
None explicitly mentioned. However, `document` is used, which is a part of the DOM (Document Object Model).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
None mentioned that would require special knowledge of JavaScript features or syntax.

**Benchmark Results:**
The benchmark results show the performance metrics for each test case:

| Test Name | Browser | Device Platform | Operating System | Executions Per Second |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| createElement | Chrome 74 | Desktop | Linux | 19.8555965423584 |
| cloneNode | Chrome 74 | Desktop | Linux | 11.447650909423828 |

**Interpretation:**
The results suggest that `createElement` is faster than `cloneNode` for creating a large number of DOM elements, especially on this specific hardware configuration.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you were to create DOM elements using other approaches, some alternatives could be:

* Using a template element and cloning it multiple times.
* Creating an array of HTML strings and then parsing them into elements using `document.createElement`.
* Using a library like jQuery or React, which provide optimized DOM manipulation functions.

However, these alternative approaches may not be as straightforward to implement and might have different performance characteristics depending on the specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

createElement vs cloneNode modified (version: 0)

Faster way to create new dom elements before insertion

Comparing performance of: createElement vs cloneNode

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

createElement

cloneNode

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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