Benchmark: Hepp hepp - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var cache = {};

function createElement(elementName) {
    return (cache[elementName] &&
            cache[elementName].cloneNode(true)) ||
            (cache[elementName] = document.createElement(elementName));
}

function createElement2(elementName) {
  return document.createElement(elementName);
}

Tests:

Cache
createElement('div');
Un-cached
createElement2('div')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Cache
Un-cached

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 break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two JavaScript functions: `createElement` and `createElement2`. Both functions are used to create HTML elements, but they have different behavior:

* `createElement(elementName)` creates an HTML element with the specified name. If the element does not exist in memory, it is created by cloning a cached version (if available) or creating a new one.
* `createElement2(elementName)` simply creates a new HTML element without caching.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Caching**: The first function, `createElement`, uses caching to improve performance. It checks if an element already exists in the cache and clones it instead of creating a new one. This approach can reduce memory allocation and garbage collection overhead.
2. **No Caching**: The second function, `createElement2`, does not use caching. It creates a new HTML element every time it is called.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Caching (createElement)**:
	+ Pros: Can improve performance by reducing memory allocation and garbage collection overhead.
	+ Cons: May increase memory usage if the cache grows too large, and can lead to slower page loads if not optimized properly.
* **No Caching (createElement2)**:
	+ Pros: Simplifies code and reduces memory usage. Does not depend on a caching mechanism.
	+ Cons: Can lead to slower performance due to frequent memory allocation.

**Library Usage**

Neither of the benchmarked functions uses any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines, like SpiderMonkey (used in Firefox), provide built-in mechanisms for caching and optimizing DOM creation.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two approaches to create HTML elements with different caching behaviors.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to add more options to the benchmark, you could consider adding:

* Using a custom caching mechanism, like an object or array to store cached elements.
* Implementing a LRU (Least Recently Used) cache policy to evict elements from memory after a certain period.
* Using a different method for creating HTML elements, such as using a template engine or a library specifically designed for DOM manipulation.

Keep in mind that each alternative would require additional modifications to the benchmark definition and test cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:47.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/47.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 47 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Cache	2061992.1 Ops/sec
Un-cached	2054412.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Hepp hepp (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Cache vs Un-cached

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Cache

Un-cached

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):