Benchmark: Dynamic Create of Table: insertRow() vs appending HTML

HTML Preparation code:

<table id="tbl">
  <tbody></tbody>
</table>

Script Preparation code:

var tbody = tbl.tBodies[0];

var data = { one: 'one', two: 'two', three: 'three', four: 'four', five: 'five' };

Tests:

insertRow()
var row = tbl.insertRow(); var cell = row.insertCell(); var textnode = document.createTextNode(data.one); cell.appendChild(textnode); cell = row.insertCell(); textnode = document.createTextNode(data.two); cell.appendChild(textnode); cell = row.insertCell(); textnode = document.createTextNode(data.three); cell.appendChild(textnode); cell = row.insertCell(); textnode = document.createTextNode(data.four); cell.appendChild(textnode); cell = row.insertCell(); textnode = document.createTextNode(data.five); cell.appendChild(textnode);
Append HTML
var html = '<tr>'; html += '<td>'+data.one+'</td>'; html += '<td>'+data.two+'</td>'; html += '<td>'+data.three+'</td>'; html += '<td>'+data.four+'</td>'; html += '<td>'+data.five+'</td>'; html += '</tr>'; tbody.innerHTML += html;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
insertRow()
Append HTML

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/94.0.4606.71 Safari/537.36 Edg/94.0.992.38

Browser/OS: Chrome 94 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
insertRow()	51681.5 Ops/sec
Append HTML	0.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches to create a table row in JavaScript:

1. Using `insertRow()` method: This approach involves inserting rows dynamically using the `insertRow()` method, creating cells within each row, and appending text nodes to those cells.
2. Appending HTML directly: This approach involves generating the entire table row as an HTML string and then appending it to the table body.

**Test Case Breakdown**

For both approaches, there are five test cases:

* Each test case creates a new table with a single row and appends data (one of five predefined strings) to that row.
* The first approach uses `insertRow()` and inserts cells within each row using `insertCell()`, appending text nodes to those cells.
* The second approach generates the entire table row as an HTML string, including all cells, and then appends it to the table body.

**Library Used**

Neither of these approaches relies on any specific library. However, the use of `document` and DOM methods (`insertRow()`, `insertCell()`, `appendChild()`) implies a basic understanding of the Document Object Model (DOM) in JavaScript.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require specific knowledge. However, it relies on the ECMAScript standard for DOM manipulation and string concatenation.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **insertRow() method:**
	* Pros:
		+ Provides more control over table structure and layout.
		+ Allows for easy addition or removal of rows.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of DOM manipulation.
		+ Requires explicit handling of row and cell creation, which can be error-prone.
2. **Appending HTML directly:**
	* Pros:
		+ Faster execution, as it avoids DOM manipulation overhead.
		+ More concise code, reducing the likelihood of errors.
	* Cons:
		+ Less control over table structure and layout.
		+ Can lead to issues with row and cell creation if not implemented carefully.

**Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the trade-off between flexibility, performance, and maintainability. If you need precise control over table structure or frequently add/remove rows, using `insertRow()` might be a better choice. However, if speed and conciseness are more important, appending HTML directly could be the way to go.

**Other Alternatives**

For other use cases, you might consider alternative approaches:

* Using `createElement()` and `appendChild()` for creating elements instead of DOM manipulation.
* Leveraging template literals or string concatenation for building HTML strings.
* Employing libraries like jQuery or React for more complex table manipulations or state management.

Keep in mind that the benchmark's focus is on the specific use case of creating a single row with multiple cells, so these alternatives might not be directly relevant to this particular test.

Related benchmarks:

Dynamic Create of Table: insertRow() vs appending HTML (version: 0)

Vannilla JS version, no jquery

Comparing performance of: insertRow() vs Append HTML

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

insertRow()

Append HTML

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):