Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
nodeType vs instanceof 3
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
nodeType vs instanceof vs nodeType literal
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var xs = []; var n = 0; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) { xs[i] = (Math.random() > .5) ? document.createElement(`a`) : document.createTextNode(``); };
Tests:
nodeType
n += (xs[(Math.random() * 1000)|0].nodeType)|0;
instanceof
n += ((xs[(Math.random() * 1000)|0]) instanceof HTMLElement)|0;
nodeType literal
n += ('nodeType' in xs[(Math.random() * 1000)|0])|0;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
nodeType
instanceof
nodeType literal
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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what is tested, compared options, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations. **Benchmark Context** The benchmark tests three different ways to compare the `nodeType` property of an HTML element in JavaScript: 1. Directly using the `nodeType` property (`n += (xs[(Math.random() * 1000)|0].nodeType)|0;`) 2. Using the `instanceof` operator with `HTMLElement` (`n += ((xs[(Math.random() * 1000)|0]) instanceof HTMLElement)|0;`) 3. Using a literal check for the presence of the `nodeType` property in an object (`n += ('nodeType' in xs[(Math.random() * 1000)|0])|0;`) **Options Comparison** The three options are compared to determine which one is faster. ### Option 1: Directly Using `nodeType` * Description: This option directly accesses the `nodeType` property of the HTML element. * Pros: + Simple and straightforward + No additional checks or operations required * Cons: + May be slower due to unnecessary computations **Option 2: Using `instanceof` Operator** * Description: This option uses the `instanceof` operator with `HTMLElement` to check if the element is of type `HTMLElement`. * Pros: + Can be faster for elements that are not `HTMLElement`s, as it avoids a potential error + May be optimized by the JavaScript engine * Cons: + Requires an additional check and may incur a performance overhead **Option 3: Using Literal Check** * Description: This option uses a literal check (`'nodeType' in xs[(Math.random() * 1000)|0])`) to determine if the property exists. * Pros: + Can be faster for elements with non-existent `nodeType` properties + Reduces the number of computations required * Cons: + May require more memory accesses due to the existence check **Library and Special JS Features** None of the test cases use any libraries or special JavaScript features. **Other Considerations** * The benchmark generates a large array of random HTML elements (`xs`) with varying `nodeType` properties. * The `Math.random()` function is used to simulate random access to the elements in the array, which can affect performance. * The `instanceof` operator may incur additional overhead due to the creation of a new object and the evaluation of the condition. **Alternatives** Some alternative approaches could be: * Using a native JavaScript method or property that allows for faster comparison (e.g., `Element.prototype.nodeType`) * Optimizing the benchmark using specialized libraries or tools (e.g., V8.js, SpiderMonkey) * Increasing the array size and/or number of elements to further stress the performance Keep in mind that the choice of optimization approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of the application.
Related benchmarks:
nodeType vs instanceof
tagName vs instanceof
nodeType vs instanceof 2
tagName.toLowerCase() vs instanceof
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?