Benchmark: ssssdsaddffvfggggfffdssff

Tests:

inner
const el = document.createElement('div'); document.documentElement.appendChild(el);
fragment
const fragment = document.createDocumentFragment(); const el = document.createElement('div'); const heading = document.createElement('h1'); heading.innerText = 'Heading'; el.appendChild(heading); fragment.appendChild(el); document.documentElement.appendChild(fragment);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
inner
fragment

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/92.0.4515.159 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 92 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
inner	1006273.0 Ops/sec
fragment	257976.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net!

**What is tested on the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks. The benchmarks are designed to measure the performance of adding elements to the DOM using different approaches.

1. **Inner**: This benchmark tests the performance of appending an element directly to the `document.documentElement`.
2. **Fragment**: This benchmark tests the performance of creating a `DocumentFragment`, appending elements to it, and then appending the fragment to the `document.documentElement`.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. Directly appending an element to the `document.documentElement` (Inner benchmark).
2. Creating a `DocumentFragment`, appending elements to it, and then appending the fragment to the `document.documentElement` (Fragment benchmark).

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**Inner Benchmark**

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward approach
* Less overhead compared to creating a fragment

Cons:

* Can lead to slower performance if the element being appended is large or complex

**Fragment Benchmark**

Pros:

* Reduces DOM mutations, which can lead to better performance
* Allows for more efficient use of memory

Cons:

* Requires creating an additional object (the fragment), which adds overhead
* May require more complex code to set up and tear down the fragment

**Library usage:**

In both benchmarks, no specific library is used. The `DocumentFragment` class is a built-in JavaScript API.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntax being tested in these benchmarks. They are purely focused on measuring the performance of different DOM appending approaches.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were to create additional benchmarks, you could consider testing other approaches, such as:

* Using a virtual DOM like React or Angular
* Creating an array of elements and then appending them all at once
* Using Web Workers or Web Assembly for parallel processing

Keep in mind that the specific approach you choose will depend on your goals and requirements.

**Benchmark preparation code:**

The provided JSON includes two benchmark preparation codes:

1. Inner Benchmark:
```javascript
const el = document.createElement('div');
document.documentElement.appendChild(el);
```
2. Fragment Benchmark:
```javascript
const fragment = document.createDocumentFragment();
const el = document.createElement('div');
const heading = document.createElement('h1');
heading.innerText = 'Heading';
el.appendChild(heading);
fragment.appendChild(el);
document.documentElement.appendChild(fragment);
```
Note that the fragment benchmark creates a `DocumentFragment` and appends elements to it, which is then appended to the `document.documentElement`.

Related benchmarks:

ssssdsaddffvfggggfffdssff (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: inner vs fragment

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

inner

fragment

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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