Benchmark: testadsf - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var e1 = document.createElement('span')
e1.style.height = 0
e1.style.visibility = 'hidden'
function te1 (text) {
    document.body.appendChild(e1)
    e1.textContent = Math.random()
    var width = e1.getBoundingClientRect().width || 0
    document.body.removeChild(e1)
    return width
}
var e2 = document.createElement('span')
e2.style.height = 0
e2.style.visibility = 'hidden'
document.body.appendChild(e2)
function te2 () {
    e2.textContent = Math.random()
    var width = e2.getBoundingClientRect().width || 0
    return width
}

Tests:

e1
te1()
e2
te2()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
e1
e2

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.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark tests two individual test cases, each measuring the execution time of a specific function: `te1` and `te2`. These functions create temporary HTML elements, set their content to a random value, get their width, and then remove them from the DOM.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Creating multiple spans**: The first test case (`e1`) creates only one span element, sets its height and visibility, appends it to the body, calls `te1`, gets the width of the span, removes it, and then creates a new span.
2. **Creating multiple spans**: The second test case (`e2`) creates two span elements, one after another, just like in the first approach.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Approach 1 (Creating multiple spans)**:
	+ Pros: May be more efficient since only one DOM mutation is made.
	+ Cons: Creates a temporary element on each iteration, which can lead to increased memory usage and garbage collection overhead.
* **Approach 2 (Creating multiple spans)**:
	+ Pros: Increases the likelihood of finding the bottleneck in the browser's DOM manipulation code.
	+ Cons: Requires creating two temporary elements, which may incur additional memory usage and garbage collection overhead.

**Library Used**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it is likely that `document.createElement` and `getBoundingClientRect` are part of the standard JavaScript API.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses a feature called "temporal dead zone" (TDZ) to optimize performance. TDZ is a region in the call stack where a function's local variables are not yet defined, allowing for more efficient garbage collection and memory management.

In this case, `e1` and `e2` are created before being used, which means that their width values can be accessed immediately after creation, reducing the overhead of temporary variables and potential TDZ issues.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to create a similar benchmark, you might consider using other approaches, such as:

* Using a library like `jsdom` or `jsdom-fork` to simulate DOM manipulation in a controlled environment.
* Creating a more complex test case with multiple iterations and varying inputs.
* Measuring the performance of different JavaScript engines or browsers on various hardware platforms.

Keep in mind that the specific approach and libraries used may depend on the goals and requirements of your benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

testadsf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: e1 vs e2

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

e1

e2

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):