Benchmark: HTML insertion - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.1.min.js"></script>
<div id="testElement" style="display:none"></div>

Script Preparation code:

var js = document.getElementById('testElement');
var jq = $('#testElement');
var len = 500;

Tests:

jQ append
var html = ''; for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) { html += '<div>Test ' + i + '</div>'; } jq.html(html); jq.html('');
js append
var html = ''; for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) { html += '<div>Test ' + i + '</div>'; } js.innerHTML = html; js.innerHTML = '';
jq append loop
for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) { jq.append('<div>Test ' + i + '</div>'); } jq.html('');
js append loop
for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) { js.innerHTML += '<div>Test ' + i + '</div>'; } js.innerHTML = '';
js array join
var html = []; for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) { html.push('<div>Test ' + i + '</div>'); } js.innerHTML = html.join(''); js.innerHTML = '';
js insert
for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) { js.insertAdjacentHTML('beforeend','<div>Test ' + i + '</div>'); } js.innerHTML = '';

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQ append
js append
jq append loop
js append loop
js array join
js insert

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/125.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQ append	4500.0 Ops/sec
js append	6606.3 Ops/sec
jq append loop	500.1 Ops/sec
js append loop	24.3 Ops/sec
js array join	6292.4 Ops/sec
js insert	2582.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, comparing different approaches for various tasks.

The benchmark you provided tests the performance of four approaches:

1.  **JQuery Append**: Using the jQuery library to append elements to an element.
2.  **Plain JS Append**: Using native JavaScript to append elements to an element.
3.  **JQuery Append Loop**: Creating a loop that appends elements using jQuery.
4.  **Plain JS Array Join**: Creating an array of HTML strings and joining them together using `innerHTML` or `insertAdjacentHTML`.

**Benchmark Comparison**

Here's a brief comparison of the four approaches:

1.  **JQuery Append** vs. **Plain JS Append**:
    *   Pros: jQuery provides a simpler syntax for appending elements, which can lead to faster execution times.
    *   Cons: jQuery adds overhead due to its library size and the need to include an additional file.
2.  **JQuery Append Loop** vs. **JQuery Append**:
    *   Pros: Loops can often be optimized for better performance by avoiding unnecessary function calls or DOM manipulations.
    *   Cons: The loop introduces additional overhead due to its repetitive nature and potential memory allocation issues.
3.  **Plain JS Array Join** vs.  **Plain JS Append**:
    *   Pros: Using an array and `innerHTML` can be more efficient than appending individual elements, especially for large datasets.
    *   Cons: This approach requires more setup and memory management due to the need to create and manipulate arrays.

**Library (JQuery) Usage**

The benchmark uses jQuery, a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation. jQuery provides several benefits:

*   Simplified syntax for common tasks like appending elements
*   Built-in functionality for handling events, animations, and Ajax requests
*   Support for various browser versions

However, using a third-party library also introduces potential drawbacks:

*   Adds overhead due to the library size and maintenance requirements
*   Can lead to slower performance if not optimized correctly

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors beyond just raw execution time. These may include:

*   **Memory usage**: How much memory does each approach consume?
*   **Robustness**: Are the approaches stable and reliable in different scenarios?
*   **Maintainability**: Can the code be easily understood, modified, or extended?

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for similar tasks, consider:

1.  **Pure JavaScript alternatives**: Instead of using jQuery, explore native JavaScript methods like `appendChild` or `insertAdjacentHTML`.
2.  **Library alternatives**: Look into other libraries that provide similar functionality to jQuery, such as Lodash or Ramda.
3.  **In-house implementations**: Consider developing your own custom solutions for specific tasks.

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on your specific requirements and constraints.

I hope this explanation is helpful!

Related benchmarks:

HTML insertion (version: 7)

compare between plain js and jQuery

Comparing performance of: jQ append vs js append vs jq append loop vs js append loop vs js array join vs js insert

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

jQ append

js append

jq append loop

js append loop

js array join

js insert

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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