Benchmark: replaceChildren vs textContent + append

Tests:

replaceChildren
const el = document.createElement('div'); el.append( document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div') ) el.replaceChildren( document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div') )
textContent + append
const el = document.createElement('div'); el.append( document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div') ) el.textContent = ''; el.append( document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div') )

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replaceChildren
textContent + append

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 dive into the explanation of what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to replace or update child elements in a DOM node: `replaceChildren` and `textContent + append`. The goal is to determine which approach is faster.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`replaceChildren`**: This method replaces the existing child nodes of an element with new ones.
2. **`textContent + append`**: This approach sets the text content of an element to an empty string and then appends new child nodes using the `append` method.

**Pros and Cons**

**`replaceChildren`:**

Pros:

* Can be more efficient when replacing a large number of child nodes, as it avoids creating temporary child nodes.
* Can be faster for elements with many child nodes.

Cons:

* Creates temporary child nodes in memory, which can consume more resources.
* May not be suitable for small elements or elements with few child nodes.

**`textContent + append`:**

Pros:

* Avoids creating temporary child nodes, reducing memory usage and potential resource consumption.
* Can be faster for small elements or elements with few child nodes.

Cons:

* Requires setting the text content to an empty string before appending new child nodes, which can add unnecessary overhead.
* May not be as efficient when replacing a large number of child nodes.

**Library Used (if applicable)**

In this benchmark, there doesn't appear to be any explicit library usage mentioned in the JSON definition. However, it's likely that the benchmark is being run on a modern JavaScript engine or runtime environment that implements these DOM methods.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code appears to be standard vanilla JavaScript.

**Other Considerations**

When considering these approaches, it's essential to consider the specific use case and requirements of your application. If you frequently replace a large number of child nodes, `replaceChildren` might be the better choice. However, if you often update small elements or need to minimize memory usage, `textContent + append` could be more suitable.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to replacing or updating child elements in DOM nodes include:

1. **`insertBefore` and `appendChild`**: Instead of replacing all child nodes at once, this approach inserts new child nodes after an existing node using `insertBefore`, and then appends additional nodes.
2. **Using `NodeLists`**: Instead of using the `replaceChildren` method, you can create a `NodeList` of elements to replace, which can provide better performance for large sets of child nodes.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might have different pros and cons compared to the methods being tested on MeasureThat.net.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/107.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/107.0.1418.26

Browser/OS: Chrome 107 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replaceChildren	116437.5 Ops/sec
textContent + append	120353.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

replaceChildren vs textContent + append (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: replaceChildren vs textContent + append

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

replaceChildren

textContent + append

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):