Benchmark: append vs appendChild

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="container"></div>

Script Preparation code:

var container = document.getElementById("container");

Tests:

appendChild
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { container.appendChild(document.createTextNode(i.toString())); }
append
var arr = [] for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { arr.push(i.toString()) } container.append(arr)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
appendChild
append

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and its results to explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches: `append` vs `appendChild`. The test creates an HTML container element with a unique ID (`"container"`), and then prepares a JavaScript script that will perform the following operations:

1. For each iteration of a loop (100 times), it appends a text node containing the string representation of the current iteration number to the container.
2. Another test case uses an array `arr` and pushes its elements (string representations of numbers) into the array, then appends the entire array as a single element to the container.

**What's Being Tested**

The benchmark is testing two aspects:

1. **Append vs AppendChild**: The primary comparison is between using the `append()` method directly on an HTML element and using the `appendChild()` method. These two methods are often used interchangeably, but they can have different performance implications.
2. **Array append vs Array.prototype.push + append()**: The secondary comparison is between using `push()` to add elements to an array and then appending the entire array to a container.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing:

1. Using `append()` directly on an HTML element
2. Using `appendChild()` method on an HTML element
3. Using `push()` to add elements to an array and then appending the entire array

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches:**

1. **Using `append()` directly**: This approach can be less efficient because it requires the browser to parse and interpret each appended string, which may lead to slower performance.
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward, easy to use for simple cases.
	* Cons: May incur overhead due to parsing and interpreting individual strings.
2. **Using `appendChild()` method**: This approach is generally more efficient than using `append()`, as it allows the browser to batch multiple operations together and optimize them.
	* Pros: Can be faster, especially when appending multiple elements, since browsers can optimize batches of append operations.
	* Cons: Requires careful consideration of the element's DOM structure, which might be less straightforward for simple cases.
3. **Using `push()` + append()**: This approach involves creating an array and pushing its elements into it, then appending the entire array to a container.
	* Pros: Can be efficient when dealing with large datasets, as it avoids parsing individual strings.
	* Cons: May incur overhead due to array creation and iteration, especially for large datasets.

**Library and Special JS Features**

The benchmark does not use any specific libraries or special JavaScript features beyond the standard DOM API.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for testing similar benchmarks might include:

1. Using `innerHTML` instead of `append()` or `appendChild()`.
2. Comparing performance with different container element sizes.
3. Testing with arrays of varying lengths and complexities (e.g., objects, dates).
4. Exploring browser-specific optimizations, such as WebAssembly or sandboxed environments.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might be more complex to implement and may require additional setup, but they can provide valuable insights into the performance characteristics of different JavaScript operations.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/118.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 118 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
appendChild	6577.3 Ops/sec
append	283352.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

append vs appendChild (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: appendChild vs append

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

appendChild

append

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):