Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
createTextNode vs cloneNode
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
createTextNode vs cloneNode
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
createTextNode
var list = [], n = 0; while(true) { n++; list.push(document.createTextNode('hello, world!')); if(n===100000) break; }
cloneNode
var list = [], n = 0, node = document.createTextNode('empty'); while(true) { n++; t = node.cloneNode(true); t.textContent = 'hello, world'; list.push(t); if(n===100000) break; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
createTextNode
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
gemma2:9b
, generated one year ago):
This benchmark compares the performance of creating text nodes in HTML documents using two different methods: `createTextNode` and `cloneNode`. **Method 1: `createTextNode`** * **Definition:** This approach directly creates new text nodes using the `document.createTextNode()` method for each iteration of a loop. * **Code Example:** ```javascript while(true) { n++; list.push(document.createTextNode('hello, world!')); if(n===100000) break; } ``` **Method 2: `cloneNode`** * **Definition:** This method first creates a single text node ("empty") and then repeatedly clones it using `node.cloneNode(true)`. Each clone's content is then updated to "hello, world!". * **Code Example:** ```javascript while(true) { n++; t = node.cloneNode(true); t.textContent = 'hello, world'; list.push(t); if(n===100000) break; } ``` **Pros and Cons:** | Method | Pros | Cons | | ------ | ------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- | | `createTextNode` | Simpler to understand, potentially faster for smaller numbers of nodes. | Can be less efficient for large numbers of nodes as it involves multiple calls to the DOM API. | | `cloneNode` | More efficient for larger numbers of nodes as cloning avoids repeated DOM manipulations.| Slightly more complex due to the need for a pre-existing node and content manipulation. | **Considerations:** * **DOM Complexity:** Both methods interact with the Document Object Model (DOM), which can be computationally expensive, especially for large web pages. * **Memory Usage:** Creating many new nodes can increase memory consumption. * **Context:** The best approach depends on the specific use case. If you need to create many text nodes quickly and efficiently, `cloneNode` might be preferable. However, if simplicity is more important or the number of nodes is small, `createTextNode` could be sufficient. **Alternatives:** * **Template Literals (for string concatenation):** Use template literals (` `` `) to construct strings more efficiently than traditional methods like `+`. * **Pre-generating Nodes Offscreen:** Create nodes in a separate document fragment to avoid direct DOM manipulation during page rendering. Let me know if you have any other questions!
Related benchmarks:
createElement vs cloneNode v3
createTextNode() vs cloneNode(false)
cloneNode vs createElement
createTextNode vs cloneNode asdf not deep
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?