Benchmark: Dom insert - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="block1"></div>
<div id="block2"></div>

Script Preparation code:

var block1 = document.getElementById("block1");
var block2 = document.getElementById("block2");

Tests:

Append
block1.append(block2);
AppendChild
block1.appendChild(block2);
insertAfter
block1.insertBefore(block2, null);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Append
AppendChild
insertAfter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which consists of three parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code snippet is executed before running the actual benchmark. In this case, it retrieves two HTML elements (`block1` and `block2`) from the DOM.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This code snippet defines the HTML structure that will be used for the benchmark. In this case, it creates two empty `<div>` elements with IDs `block1` and `block2`.
3. **Benchmark Definitions**: These are the actual test cases that measure performance. We'll explore each one in detail.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares three different approaches to inserting a child element into another element:

1. **`.append()` method**: This method appends an element to the end of its parent.
2. **`.appendChild()` method**: Similar to `.append()`, but it's a more explicit and efficient way to insert a child element.
3. **`.insertBefore()` method with `null` as the second argument**: This method inserts an element before the first child of its parent, effectively replacing the first child.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

* `.append()` method:
	+ Pros: Simple to use, widely supported.
	+ Cons: Can be less efficient than other methods, especially for large datasets.
* `.appendChild()` method:
	+ Pros: More explicit and efficient than `.append()`, widely supported.
	+ Cons: Requires more code to use correctly.
* `.insertBefore()` method with `null` as the second argument:
	+ Pros: Efficient way to replace the first child of an element, can be faster for large datasets.
	+ Cons: Less intuitive to use than other methods, may not be supported by older browsers.

**Library and Purpose**

None of the benchmark test cases rely on any specific JavaScript library. The tests are designed to measure the performance of built-in DOM manipulation methods.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in these benchmark test cases. They only utilize standard JavaScript DOM manipulation methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for inserting child elements, here are a few more options:

* Using `DOMParser` to create a new DOM element from an HTML string.
* Utilizing CSS transforms or animations to achieve the same result without modifying the DOM.
* Leveraging a library like React or Vue.js, which provide efficient and optimized methods for DOM manipulation.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce additional dependencies, complexity, or performance overhead compared to the built-in DOM methods used in this benchmark.

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/95.0.4638.69 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 95 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Append	1061840.5 Ops/sec
AppendChild	1241558.9 Ops/sec
insertAfter	1167521.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Dom insert (version: 0)

Test performance

Comparing performance of: Append vs AppendChild vs insertAfter

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Append

AppendChild

insertAfter

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):