Benchmark: CloneNode vs InnerHTML Fixed

Tests:

CloneNode
const row = '<tr><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr>'; const table = '<table><tbody>' + Array(10000).fill(row).join('') + '</tbody></table>'; const template = document.createElement('template'); template.innerHTML = table; const div = document.createElement('div'); template.content.firstChild.cloneNode(true);
InnerHTML
const row = '<tr><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr>'; const table = '<table><tbody>' + Array(10000).fill(row).join('') + '</tbody></table>'; const template = document.createElement('template'); template.innerHTML = table; const div = document.createElement('div'); div.innerHTML = table;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
CloneNode
InnerHTML

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the provided benchmark.

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark tests two approaches to achieve the same result: Cloning a table row using `cloneNode` or setting its innerHTML. The test creates a template element, sets its innerHTML with a large amount of HTML content, and then clones the first child of the template element.

**Options compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **CloneNode**: This approach uses the `cloneNode` method to create a deep copy of the table row. The original element is not modified, and a new one is created in its place.
2. **InnerHTML**: This approach sets the innerHTML of an existing element (in this case, a `div`) with the same HTML content as before.

**Pros and Cons**

### CloneNode

Pros:

* Creates a deep copy of the original element, preserving all its attributes and child nodes.
* Does not modify the original element.

Cons:

* Can be slower due to the overhead of creating a new element and copying its contents.
* May require more memory allocation if the cloned element is not garbage collected immediately.

### InnerHTML

Pros:

* Faster, as it only updates the existing element's innerHTML without creating a new one.
* Less memory-intensive, as no new elements are created.

Cons:

* Modifies the original element, which may be undesirable in certain scenarios.
* Can lead to performance issues if the innerHTML is updated frequently or with complex content.

**Library and Purpose**

The `template` element is used in both test cases. A `template` element is a HTML element that can be used as a container for dynamic content. When its `innerHTML` property is set, it renders the contents of the template as HTML elements. In this case, the template's innerHTML is set to contain a large amount of HTML content, which is then cloned or used as-is.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None are mentioned in the provided benchmark definitions. However, using `innerHTML` can lead to security vulnerabilities if the input content is not properly sanitized, as it allows execution of JavaScript code.

**Other alternatives**

Alternatives to these approaches could include:

* Using a library like jQuery's `.clone()` method, which creates a deep copy of an element.
* Implementing custom logic for cloning elements using techniques like document fragment manipulation.
* Using web worker threads to parallelize the cloning process, if available on the target browser.

In summary, the benchmark compares two approaches for achieving a specific result: Cloning a table row using `cloneNode` or setting its innerHTML. Each approach has pros and cons regarding performance, memory usage, and modification of original elements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/102.0.5005.61 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 102 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
CloneNode	50.2 Ops/sec
InnerHTML	30.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

CloneNode vs InnerHTML Fixed (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: CloneNode vs InnerHTML

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

CloneNode

InnerHTML

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):