Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Compare AppendTo and html() function
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
appendTo vs html
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.2.4.min.js"></script> <div class="myTarget"></div>
Tests:
appendTo
var myTarget = $('.myTarget'); for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { var abc = $('<div class="abc' + i +'">ABCDEFGH' + i +'</div>'); abc.appendTo(myTarget); }
html
var myTarget = $('.myTarget'); var str = ""; for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { var abc = $('<div class="abc' + i +'">ABCDEFGH' + i +'</div>'); str.concat(abc[0].outterHTML); } myTarget[0].innerHTML = str;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
appendTo
html
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):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **What is tested?** The provided JSON represents two test cases that compare the performance of two approaches: `appendTo` and `html()` functions in jQuery. The tests aim to measure which method is faster for appending elements to a DOM container. **Options compared:** Two options are being compared: 1. **AppendTo**: This approach uses the `appendTo` method from jQuery, which appends a new element to the end of the target container. 2. **html()**: This approach uses the `html()` method from jQuery, which sets the HTML content of an element. **Pros and cons of each approach:** 1. **AppendTo**: * Pros: + Can be faster for small elements, as it only appends a single element. + May be more cache-friendly, as the appended element is not part of a larger HTML string. * Cons: + Requires two DOM operations: appending and re-rendering the target container. + May incur additional overhead due to the need for jQuery's rendering pipeline. 2. **html()**: * Pros: + Can be faster for large elements, as it sets the entire HTML content at once. + Reduces DOM operations, potentially leading to better performance and cache efficiency. * Cons: + Involves creating a new HTML string, which can lead to increased memory usage. + May not be suitable for small elements or elements with complex structures. **Library:** The tests use jQuery (version 2.2.4) as the library, specifically the `appendTo` and `html()` methods. **Special JS features or syntax:** Neither of the two approaches requires any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond basic DOM manipulation using jQuery's methods. **Other alternatives:** Other possible approaches for appending elements to a DOM container might include: 1. **DOM string concatenation**: Creating a single HTML string and then appending it to the target element. 2. **Pushing elements to an array**: Storing elements in an array and then pushing them onto the target container's content array. 3. **Using a custom implementation**: Developing a custom method for appending elements, potentially using Web Workers or other optimization techniques. Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics compared to the two tested approaches. I hope this explanation helps software engineers understand the context and implications of the benchmark results!
Related benchmarks:
jQuery .append() vs .appendTo()
createElement vs cloneNode from DOM
jQuery vs Vanilla JavaScript
jquery append
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?