Benchmark: Cherrypick replace child vs appending a document fragment

HTML Preparation code:

<div id='test-element'></div>

AخA
 
<div id='test-element'></div>

Script Preparation code:

var elements = [document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div')];
var fragment = document.createDocumentFragment();
var container = document.getElementById('test-element');

elements.forEach(element => fragment.appendChild(element));
container.appendChild(fragment);

​x
 
var elements = [document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div')];var fragment = document.createDocumentFragment();var container = document.getElementById('test-element');​elements.forEach(element => fragment.appendChild(element));container.appendChild(fragment);

Tests:

Cherrypick append child
var changeIndex = 1; elements[changeIndex] = document.createElement('div'); container.replaceChild(elements[changeIndex], container.children[changeIndex]);
var changeIndex = 1;
elements[changeIndex] = document.createElement('div');
container.replaceChild(elements[changeIndex], container.children[changeIndex]);
Using documentFragment, append new & reuse old children
var changeIndex = 1; var newChildren = document.createDocumentFragment(); elements[changeIndex] = document.createElement('div'); elements.forEach(element => newChildren.appendChild(element)); while(container.firstChild) { container.firstChild.remove(); } container.appendChild(newChildren)
var changeIndex = 1;
var newChildren = document.createDocumentFragment();

elements[changeIndex] = document.createElement('div');
elements.forEach(element => newChildren.appendChild(element));

while(container.firstChild) {
container.firstChild.remove();
}

container.appendChild(newChildren)
replaceChildren method
var changeIndex = 1; elements[changeIndex] = document.createElement('div'); container.replaceChildren(elements)
var changeIndex = 1;

elements[changeIndex] = document.createElement('div');
container.replaceChildren(elements)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
Cherrypick append child
Using documentFragment, append new & reuse old children
replaceChildren method

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.6 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Cherrypick append child	765693.4 Ops/sec
Using documentFragment, append new & reuse old children	400501.4 Ops/sec
replaceChildren method	813957.1 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 4 months ago):

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

Benchmark Overview

The benchmark compares three different approaches to replace or append child nodes to an HTML element:

replaceChild (Method 1)
Using a documentFragment to append new children while reusing old ones (Method 2)
Replacing all child nodes using the replaceChildren method (Method 3)

Options Compared

The benchmark compares three approaches:

Method 1: replaceChild
- Replaces only the specified child node.
- Pros: Simple, efficient for small sets of children.
- Cons: May lead to unnecessary DOM mutations if not used carefully.
Method 2: Using documentFragment
- Creates a fragment that can be appended to the container, reusing old nodes and adding new ones efficiently.
- Pros: Can be more efficient than replaceChild for larger sets of children, reduces unnecessary DOM mutations.
- Cons: May require additional memory allocation, more complex setup.
Method 3: replaceChildren
- Replaces all child nodes at once.
- Pros: Simple and easy to use, reduces the number of DOM mutations compared to replaceChild.
- Cons: Can be less efficient than Method 2 for large sets of children, may lead to unnecessary node creation.

Library Usage

None of the benchmark methods explicitly use any libraries. However, they do rely on the browser's built-in DOM APIs.

Special JS Features or Syntax

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. It only relies on standard DOM APIs and variable declarations.

Other Alternatives

Other approaches to replacing or appending child nodes could be considered:

Using appendChild repeatedly (inefficient, as it creates a new parent node each time).
Using a loop to iterate over the children array and append/remove nodes individually (less efficient than Method 2, which reuses old nodes).
Using a library like jQuery that provides an optimized way to manipulate DOM elements.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be more efficient or practical for real-world scenarios, and the benchmark is primarily designed to compare the performance of these three specific methods.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three different approaches to replace or append child nodes to an HTML element:

1. `replaceChild` (Method 1)
2. Using a `documentFragment` to append new children while reusing old ones (Method 2)
3. Replacing all child nodes using the `replaceChildren` method (Method 3)

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares three approaches:

* **Method 1: replaceChild**
	+ Replaces only the specified child node.
	+ Pros: Simple, efficient for small sets of children.
	+ Cons: May lead to unnecessary DOM mutations if not used carefully.
* **Method 2: Using documentFragment**
	+ Creates a fragment that can be appended to the container, reusing old nodes and adding new ones efficiently.
	+ Pros: Can be more efficient than `replaceChild` for larger sets of children, reduces unnecessary DOM mutations.
	+ Cons: May require additional memory allocation, more complex setup.
* **Method 3: replaceChildren**
	+ Replaces all child nodes at once.
	+ Pros: Simple and easy to use, reduces the number of DOM mutations compared to `replaceChild`.
	+ Cons: Can be less efficient than Method 2 for large sets of children, may lead to unnecessary node creation.

**Library Usage**

None of the benchmark methods explicitly use any libraries. However, they do rely on the browser's built-in DOM APIs.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. It only relies on standard DOM APIs and variable declarations.

**Other Alternatives**

Other approaches to replacing or appending child nodes could be considered:

* Using `appendChild` repeatedly (inefficient, as it creates a new parent node each time).
* Using a loop to iterate over the children array and append/remove nodes individually (less efficient than Method 2, which reuses old nodes).
* Using a library like jQuery that provides an optimized way to manipulate DOM elements.

Related benchmarks:

Cherrypick replace child vs appending a document fragment (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Cherrypick append child vs Using documentFragment, append new & reuse old children vs replaceChildren method

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Cherrypick append child

Using documentFragment, append new & reuse old children

replaceChildren method

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 4 months ago):