Benchmark: lenth count tag vs dom

HTML Preparation code:

<html>
  
</html>

Script Preparation code:

mainbox = document.createElement('div');
document.body.appendChild(mainbox);

for (var i=0; i<100;i++){
                          
 newIframe = document.createElement('iframe');                          
 mainbox.append(newIframe);                      
                          
}

Tests:

tag count
var mainboxinnerHTML=mainbox.innerHTML; var newIframeLength = mainboxinnerHTML.split(/<iframe/i).length - 1;
dom count
var newIframe = mainbox.getElementsByTagName("iframe"); var newIframeLength2 = newIframe.length;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
tag count
dom count

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; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.124 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
tag count	77878.0 Ops/sec
dom count	5004305.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark tests two approaches to counting the number of iframes created in an HTML document:

1. **Tag Count**: Uses `getElementsByTagName` to retrieve all iframe elements and then counts the length of the resulting array.
2. **DOM Count**: Uses a regular expression to split the innerHTML of the main box (`mainbox`) on `<iframe>` tags, subtracts 1 from the result (since the first match is the tag itself), and assigns it to `newIframeLength2`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

* `getElementsByTagName` (Tag Count): This method uses the browser's built-in DOM API to retrieve elements by name. It's a straightforward approach that works well for most cases.
* Regular expression (DOM Count): This method uses a custom regular expression to extract iframes from the HTML string. While it may provide faster results, it can be less reliable than `getElementsByTagName` since it relies on a specific pattern.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Tag Count**:
	+ Pros: Reliable, easy to understand, and widely supported by browsers.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the need for DOM querying.
* **DOM Count**:
	+ Pros: Potentially faster since it avoids DOM querying overhead.
	+ Cons: Less reliable due to the reliance on regular expressions; may not work as expected for all HTML structures.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library used. However, `getElementsByTagName` is a built-in method of the DocumentObjectModel (DOM), which is an API provided by most browsers.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark. The code uses standard JavaScript constructs like variables, loops, and regular expressions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to write a similar benchmark, you might consider using other approaches, such as:

* Using `querySelectorAll` instead of `getElementsByTagName`
* Implementing your own custom regular expression or parsing algorithm
* Comparing performance with different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8 vs. SpiderMonkey)
* Adding additional complexities, like varying HTML structures or random content

Keep in mind that each approach will have its pros and cons, and the best choice depends on your specific use case and requirements.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided `Script Preparation Code` creates a main box element and appends 100 iframes to it. The `Html Preparation Code` is an empty HTML file that serves as a container for the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

lenth count tag vs dom (version: 6)

Comparing performance of: tag count vs dom count

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

tag count

dom count

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):