Run results for: Traverse function vs NodeIterator vs TreeWalker1

Run details:

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:134.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/134.0

Browser: Firefox 134

Operating system: Linux

Device Platform: Desktop

Date tested: one year ago

Test name	Executions per second
createTreeWalker	1383.2 Ops/sec
XPATH	6976.5 Ops/sec

Script Preparation code:

// language=HTML
const html = `
    <!-- article out start -->
    <article>
        <!-- article in start -->
        <h1>Lorem ipsum</h1>
        <p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Cumque, nostrum.</p>
        <!-- article in end -->
    </article>
    <!-- article out end -->

    <!-- article out start -->
    <article>
        <!-- article in start -->
        <h1>Lorem ipsum</h1>
        <p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Cumque, nostrum.</p>
        <!-- article in end -->
    </article>
    <!-- article out end -->

    <!-- article out start -->
    <article>
        <!-- article in start -->
        <h1>Lorem ipsum</h1>
        <p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Cumque, nostrum.</p>
        <!-- article in end -->
    </article>
    <!-- article out end -->
`;
const template = document.createElement('template');
template.innerHTML = html;

window.testTemplate = template;

Tests:

createTreeWalker
var html = document.querySelector('html'); var walker = document.createTreeWalker(html, NodeFilter.SHOW_ALL); var node; while (node = walker.nextNode()) { console.log(node); }
XPATH
var vv = 'count'; var data = {count:1}; var xpat = document.evaluate(`//*[contains(translate(text(),' ', ''), "{{${vv}}}") or contains(translate(@value,' ', ''), "{{${vv}}}")]`, document, null, XPathResult.ANY_TYPE, null); while(node = xpat.iterateNext()){ console.log(node); }

Run results for: Traverse function vs NodeIterator vs TreeWalker1

Let's compare the speed of 3 different ways to traverse the DOM.

createTreeWalker

XPATH