Benchmark: clone vs inner - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

cloning
const paren = document.createElement('div'); let n = 0; const div = document.createElement('div'); const p = document.createElement('p'); p.classList.add('font-bold'); p.textContent = 'Hello!'; div.appendChild(p); while(true) { n++; paren.appendChild(div.cloneNode(true)); if(n===100000) break; }
inner with join
const paren = document.createElement('div'); let n = 0; let str= []; while(true) { n++; str.push('<div><p class="font-bold">Hello!</p></div>'); if(n===100000) break; } paren.innerHTML = str.join('');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
cloning
inner with join

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 break down the provided JSON and explain what is tested in the benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript function or code snippet that defines a microbenchmark. In this case, there are two benchmarks defined:

1. `clone vs inner`: This benchmark compares the performance of cloning elements versus using the `innerHTML` property to append HTML strings.
2. `inner with join`: This benchmark tests the performance of using the `innerHTML` property to append HTML strings joined by a separator.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches:

1. **Cloning Elements**: This approach creates a new element, clones it, and appends it to another element. The cloned element is created by calling `cloneNode(true)` on the original element.
2. **Using `innerHTML` with Join**: This approach creates an array of HTML strings, joins them together using the `join()` method, and sets the `innerHTML` property of a container element to the joined string.

**Pros and Cons**

**Cloning Elements:**

Pros:

* Allows for more control over the HTML structure
* Can be faster for large datasets if done correctly

Cons:

* Requires more overhead due to cloning the elements
* May incur additional DOM manipulations

**Using `innerHTML` with Join:**

Pros:

* Faster and more lightweight than cloning elements
* Simplifies code and reduces the number of DOM manipulations

Cons:

* Less control over the HTML structure
* Can be slower for large datasets if not optimized correctly

**Library Usage**

In the provided benchmark definition, there is no explicit library usage. However, it's likely that some libraries or frameworks might be used in a real-world scenario.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. The code uses standard JavaScript constructs and does not include any advanced features like async/await, Promises, or modern ES6+ syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to microbenchmarks, here are a few options:

* **Benchmarking frameworks**: Libraries like Benchmark.js, Microbenchmark, or JSPerf provide more comprehensive benchmarking capabilities and can be used to create and run benchmarks.
* **Profiling tools**: Tools like Chrome DevTools, Firefox Developer Edition, or Node.js Inspector can provide detailed profiling information and help identify performance bottlenecks in your code.

Keep in mind that the choice of benchmarking framework or tool depends on your specific use case, programming language, and project requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/103.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 103 on Windows 8

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
cloning	1.8 Ops/sec
inner with join	0.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

clone vs inner (version: 0)

tes

Comparing performance of: cloning vs inner with join

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

cloning

inner with join

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):