Benchmark: ie test - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="test"></div>

Tests:

test1
var b = document.getElementById("test") var a = document.createElement("div"); a.className = "bir"; b.appendChild(a)
test2
var b = document.getElementById("test") var a = document.createElement("div"); a.id = "bir"; b.appendChild(a)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test1
test2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko

Browser/OS: IE 11 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test1	49865.4 Ops/sec
test2	16710.6 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its options.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two microbenchmarks for testing JavaScript performance in Internet Explorer (IE). The benchmarks measure how long it takes to create and append an HTML element (`div`) to a container element (`#test`).

**Options compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Setting the `className` property**: In the first benchmark, the code sets the `className` property of the created `div` element to "bir".
2. **Setting the `id` property**: In the second benchmark, the code sets the `id` property of the created `div` element to "bir".

**Pros and Cons:**

* **`className` property**: Setting a class name can be more flexible than setting an ID, as it allows for more CSS selectors to target the element. However, this approach may not provide the same level of specificity as using an ID.
	+ Pros: More flexibility in styling and selecting elements.
	+ Cons: May lead to slower performance due to the additional selector calculations.
* **`id` property**: Setting a unique ID can provide faster performance due to its uniqueness and specificity. However, this approach limits the flexibility in styling and selecting elements.
	+ Pros: Faster performance and more specific selectors.
	+ Cons: Less flexible than using class names.

**Library usage:**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. The code only uses built-in JavaScript DOM methods (`document.getElementById`, `createElement`, `appendChild`).

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntaxes used in these benchmarks, as they are focused on basic DOM manipulation.

**Other alternatives:**

If you wanted to add more complexity to the benchmark, you could consider introducing additional factors such as:

* Using a CSS preprocessor like Sass or Less
* Adding dynamic content to the HTML element
* Utilizing Web Workers for parallel processing
* Incorporating security features like Content Security Policy (CSP)

Keep in mind that these additions would likely increase the complexity and computational overhead of the benchmark, making it more challenging to interpret results.

The provided benchmarks are simple yet effective for testing basic DOM manipulation performance. By understanding the trade-offs between using class names and IDs, developers can optimize their code for better performance in various browsers.

Related benchmarks:

ie test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test1 vs test2

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test1

test2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):