Benchmark: Vanilla appendChild vs innerHTML

HTML Preparation code:

<ul id="itemList"></ul>

Script Preparation code:

const itemList = document.getElementById("itemList");

Tests:

appendChild
for(let i = 0; i < 10; i++) { const node = document.createElement("li"); node.innerHTML = "Item nr: " + i; itemList.appendChild(node); }
innerHTML
let newItems = ""; for(let i = 0; i < 10; i++) { newItems += "<li>Item nr: " + i + "</li>"; } itemList.innerHTML = newItems;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
appendChild
innerHTML

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 break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares two approaches for appending content to an HTML element: `innerHTML` and `appendChild`. The test aims to determine which approach is faster, more efficient, and better suited for a specific use case.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates a constant reference to an HTML element with the id "itemList". This element will be used as the target for appending content.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code generates a basic HTML structure, including an unordered list (`<ul>`) with the id "itemList", which matches the element referenced in the script preparation code.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **appendChild**: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop to create 10 new list items and appends them to the target element using the `appendChild` method.
2. **innerHTML**: This test case creates a string containing the HTML for 10 new list items and assigns it to the `innerHTML` property of the target element.

**Libraries Used**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or individual test cases. However, it's worth noting that both approaches rely on the built-in JavaScript DOM (Document Object Model) APIs.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, some modern browsers may utilize features like `const` and template literals (`\`${...}\``), which are used in the script preparation code. These features are not specific to JavaScript performance testing but rather a reflection of modern coding practices.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **innerHTML**: Pros:
	* Faster, as it involves less overhead compared to `appendChild`.
	* More convenient for simple cases where you need to set the entire HTML content.
Cons:
	* Can lead to performance issues if used excessively or with complex layouts.
	* May not be suitable for dynamic or ever-changing content.
2. **appendChild**: Pros:
	* Better suited for dynamic or ever-changing content, as it allows for individual element manipulation.
	* More flexible and efficient for complex layouts or frequent changes.
Cons:
	* Slower compared to `innerHTML` due to the overhead of creating and manipulating elements individually.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, consider:

1. **insertAdjacentHTML()**: A newer method that's faster than `innerHTML` but slower than `appendChild`. It's designed specifically for inserting HTML content at a specific point in the DOM.
2. **DOM Manipulation using Node.js APIs**: You can use native Node.js APIs like `child_process` or `node-html-parser` to manipulate the DOM, which might offer better performance compared to JavaScript's built-in DOM methods.

Keep in mind that these alternatives are not necessarily designed for benchmarking purposes and may have their own trade-offs.

Related benchmarks:

Vanilla appendChild vs innerHTML (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: appendChild vs innerHTML

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

appendChild

innerHTML

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):