Benchmark: replce vs innerhtml

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="parent"><div id="result">|result|</div></div>

Script Preparation code:

var parent = document.getElementById("parent");
var resnode = document.getElementById("result");
var reshtml = '<div id="result">|result|</div>';
var clone = resnode.cloneNode(true);

Tests:

replace
parent.innerHTML = reshtml.replace("|result|","alabala");
get ElementBy Id
clone.innerHTML = "alabala"; parent.replaceChild(clone, resnode);
rnode
var rnode = document.getElementById("result"); rnode.innerHTML = "alabala";

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replace
get ElementBy Id
rnode

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition and Script Preparation Code**

The benchmark definition is comparing two approaches: `replace` and `innerHTML`. The script preparation code sets up the HTML structure by creating a `parent` element, a `result` node within it, and a clone of the `result` node. The `reshtml` variable contains the HTML string with a placeholder for the result value.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is testing three options:

1. **Replace**: Using the `replace()` method to replace the content of the `parent` element.
2. **get ElementBy Id and replaceChild**: Using `document.getElementById()` to retrieve the `result` node, setting its `innerHTML`, and then replacing it with a new clone using `replaceChild()`.
3. **rnode (direct assignment)**: Directly assigning the result value to the `innerHTML` of the `result` node.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

1. **Replace**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, as it only updates the content of the element.
	* Cons: Can be less readable, especially when dealing with complex HTML structures.
2. **get ElementBy Id and replaceChild**:
	* Pros: More explicit and readable, as it separates retrieving the node from updating its content.
	* Cons: May incur additional overhead due to DOM manipulation.
3. **rnode (direct assignment)**:
	* Pros: Simple and concise, with direct access to the element's innerHTML.
	* Cons: May be less efficient than `replace()`, as it involves creating a new string value.

**Library and Special JavaScript Features**

There are no external libraries being used in this benchmark. The `cloneNode()` method is a native DOM method that creates a shallow copy of an element.

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, Promises, or modern Web APIs.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* Using `template literals` to create the HTML string could provide a more readable and efficient way to set the content.
* Employing a library like jQuery or React could simplify DOM manipulation and improve performance.
* Investigating the use of Web Workers or other concurrency models might reveal differences in performance between approaches.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely require significant changes to the benchmark definition, script preparation code, and test setup.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/109.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 109 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replace	255665.1 Ops/sec
get ElementBy Id	0.0 Ops/sec
rnode	1202060.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

replce vs innerhtml (version: 7)

Comparing performance of: replace vs get ElementBy Id vs rnode

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

replace

get ElementBy Id

rnode

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):