Benchmark: Inserting children

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Tests:

inserting via Jquery
var div = document.createElement("DIV"); var $div = $(div); for(i=0; i<1000; i++){ $div.append($("<span class='line-number'>" + String(i) + "</span>")); }
Inserting via vanilla javascript
var div = document.createElement("DIV"); for(i=0; i<1000; i++){ var lineNumberSpan = document.createElement("SPAN"); lineNumberSpan.innerHTML = String(1); lineNumberSpan.className = "line-number"; div.appendChild(lineNumberSpan); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
inserting via Jquery
Inserting via vanilla javascript

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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for inserting children into an HTML element. The script preparation code is empty, which means that the test starts from scratch each time it runs. The HTML preparation code includes a reference to jQuery 3.3.1, indicating that this benchmark will use JavaScript libraries.

**Options Compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **Inserting via Jquery**: This method uses jQuery's `append` function to add spans with line numbers to the DOM.
2. **Inserting via vanilla JavaScript**: This method manually creates and appends span elements using the `createElement` and `appendChild` methods.

**Pros and Cons**

### Inserting via Jquery

Pros:

* Faster execution time, likely due to jQuery's optimized implementation of the `append` function.
* Easier to write and maintain code, as it uses a high-level library that abstracts away many low-level details.

Cons:

* Requires including an additional library (jQuery), which can increase the overall size of the test code.
* May not be suitable for projects that aim to minimize dependencies or have specific performance requirements.

### Inserting via vanilla JavaScript

Pros:

* No additional dependencies required, as it only uses built-in DOM methods.
* Can provide more fine-grained control over the creation and manipulation of elements.

Cons:

* Slower execution time, likely due to the overhead of manually creating and appending elements.
* Requires a better understanding of low-level DOM manipulation techniques.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM interactions. In this benchmark, it's used for its `append` function, which efficiently inserts elements into the DOM. While jQuery provides convenience and speed benefits, including an additional library can increase test code size and complexity.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

Neither of the provided benchmark definitions uses special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ECMAScript 6 (ES6) features.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives for inserting children into an HTML element could include:

* Using a templating engine like Handlebars or Mustache.
* Leveraging a library like React or Angular for DOM manipulation.
* Utilizing a pure virtual DOM implementation, such as Vue.js's reactivity system.

These alternatives might offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, ease of use, and learning curve.

Related benchmarks:

Inserting children (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: inserting via Jquery vs Inserting via vanilla javascript

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

inserting via Jquery

Inserting via vanilla javascript

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):