Benchmark: innerhtml vs removechild vs remove vs innerText

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="container"></div>

Script Preparation code:

var node = document.getElementById('container');

for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) node.appendChild(document.createElement('div'));

Tests:

innerHTML
var node = document.getElementById('container'); node.innerHTML = '';
removeChild
var node = document.getElementById('container'); while(node.firstChild) node.removeChild(node.firstChild)
remove
var node = document.getElementById('container'); while(node.firstChild) node.firstChild.remove()
innerText
var node = document.getElementById('container'); node.innerText = '';

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
innerHTML
removeChild
remove
innerText

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case created on MeasureThat.net. The test compares the performance of three approaches for clearing an HTML element's content: `innerHTML`, `removeChild`, and `innerText`. Additionally, it tests another approach, `remove`.

**Options Compared**

*   **innerHTML**: This method sets the HTML content of an element using its `innerHTML` property.
*   **removeChild**: This method removes a single child node from an element.
*   **remove**: Although not specified in the JSON, it seems to be a typo. It should refer to the `remove()` method, which can be used on both DOM nodes and elements (in modern JavaScript).
*   **innerText**: This method sets the text content of an element using its `innerText` property.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **innerHTML**:
    *   Pros: Simple to use and widely supported. It's a single line of code.
    *   Cons: Can lead to slower performance compared to other methods, especially when dealing with large amounts of data or complex HTML structures, due to the creation of temporary DOM nodes.
*   **removeChild**:
    *   Pros: More efficient than `innerHTML` for small amounts of data, as it avoids creating temporary DOM nodes. It's also more precise, allowing for better control over element modifications.
    *   Cons: Requires using a loop to remove all child nodes, which can be slower than other methods for larger datasets.
*   **innerText** (assuming `remove()` is meant to refer to it):
    *   Pros: Similar to `innerHTML`, but more focused on text content. It's also efficient for removing small amounts of data, as it avoids creating temporary DOM nodes.
    *   Cons: Same drawbacks as `innerHTML` when dealing with larger datasets or complex HTML structures.
*   **remove**:
    *   Pros and Cons: Assuming this is intended to be similar to `removeChild`, but without specifying which type of node (`DOM Node` or `Element`). If it's meant for both, it would have the same pros as `removeChild`. However, if it's only meant for elements (and not DOM nodes), its usage and performance may vary.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the JSON. The benchmarking test relies on built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

No special features or syntax are explicitly used in this benchmark except possibly for `remove` (if it refers to a specific, non-standard way of removing elements). However, some older browsers might not support these methods consistently.

**Other Alternatives**

For comparing the performance of different approaches to clear HTML element content:

*   **DOM Traversals**: Instead of relying on built-in DOM methods like `innerHTML`, `removeChild`, and `innerText`, you could manually traverse the DOM tree to find and remove elements. This approach can be more complex but may lead to better results in certain scenarios.
*   **Template Literals**: Some modern browsers support template literals for string interpolation, which might offer better performance than `innerHTML` for specific use cases.

When creating a new benchmark on MeasureThat.net or similar platforms, it's essential to consider the following:

*   Choose relevant test cases that accurately reflect your requirements and target audience.
*   Use clear, descriptive names for your benchmarks to ensure they can be easily understood by users with varying levels of expertise.
*   Consider factors like browser support, platform compatibility, and potential edge cases when selecting test methods.

Keep in mind that benchmarking performance is complex, and the best approach will depend on specific requirements and constraints.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/89.0.4389.128 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 89 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
innerHTML	2099363.5 Ops/sec
removeChild	5001976.5 Ops/sec
remove	4948203.5 Ops/sec
innerText	3031191.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

innerhtml vs removechild vs remove vs innerText (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: innerHTML vs removeChild vs remove vs innerText

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

innerHTML

removeChild

remove

innerText

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):