Benchmark: jQuery .append() vs .appendTo()

HTML Preparation code:

<span id="message">. Bienvenue sur le site web</span>
<p id="salutation">Bonjour</p>
<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.4.1.min.js"></script>

Tests:

.append()
$("#salutation").append($("#message"));
.appendTo()
$("#message").appendTo("#salutation");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
.append()
.appendTo()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:137.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/137.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 137 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
.append()	13757.6 Ops/sec
.appendTo()	11884.9 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two methods for appending HTML content to an element: `.append()` and `.appendTo()`.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code includes a reference to jQuery 3.4.1, which is a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code creates a simple web page with two elements: `#salutation` and `#message`. The script will append content to the latter element.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **`.append()`**: This test case uses jQuery's `.append()` method to append the content of `#message` to `#salutation`.
2. **`.appendTo()`**: This test case uses jQuery's `.appendTo()` method to append the content of `#message` to `#salutation`.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation and event handling. In this benchmark, it provides the `$()` function for selecting elements and the `.append()` and `.appendTo()` methods for manipulating the DOM.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

There isn't any specific special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It's focused on comparing two DOM manipulation methods provided by jQuery.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement a similar benchmark, you might consider using other JavaScript libraries like:

* Vanilla JavaScript (using the `Element` API)
* React or other library for building user interfaces
* Vue.js or other framework for building web applications

However, if you're interested in comparing the performance of `.append()` and `.appendTo()`, a vanilla JavaScript implementation would be a good choice.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

Here are some pros and cons of using `.append()` versus `.appendTo()`:

* **`.append()`**
	+ Pros:
		- More intuitive for appending content to an element
		- Can be more efficient if the element already has child nodes
	+ Cons:
		- May not work correctly when appending to a single-element container
		- Can lead to unnecessary DOM mutations (e.g., creating new elements)
* **`.appendTo()`**
	+ Pros:
		- More explicit and controlled way of appending content
		- Works correctly even if the element is already empty or has only one child node
	+ Cons:
		- May be less intuitive for developers who are used to `.append()`
		- Can lead to slower performance if the element has a large number of child nodes

Keep in mind that these pros and cons apply specifically to jQuery's implementation, which may have its own optimizations and quirks.

Overall, this benchmark provides valuable insight into the performance characteristics of two popular DOM manipulation methods provided by jQuery.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery .append() vs .appendTo() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: .append() vs .appendTo()

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

.append()

.appendTo()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):