Benchmark: TY_svg_stackCompare_v005

HTML Preparation code:

<svg>
    <rect id="foo" w="10px" h="10px" fill="none" stroke="#C60" stroke-width="1px" />
    <rect id="bar" w="10px" h="10px" fill="none" stroke="#C60" stroke-width="1px" />

    <g id="group">
        <rect w="10px" h="10px" fill="none" stroke="#CCC" stroke-width="1px" />
        <rect w="10px" h="10px" fill="none" stroke="#CCC" stroke-width="1px" />
    </g>
</svg>

Script Preparation code:

var elementA = document.getElementById("foo");
var elementB = document.getElementById("bar");
var elementGroup = document.getElementById("group");

Tests:

Single - opacity - setAttribute - opacity
var i = 10000; while (i--) { elementA.setAttribute("opacity", i); elementB.setAttribute("opacity", i); }
Single - opacity - style.opacity
var i = 10000; while (i--) { elementA.style.opacity = i; elementB.style.opacity = i; }
Group - opacity - setAttribute - Fill
var i = 10000; while (i--) { elementGroup.setAttribute("opacity", i); }
Group - opacity - style.opacity
var i = 10000; while (i--) { elementGroup.style.opacity = i; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Single - opacity - setAttribute - opacity
Single - opacity - style.opacity
Group - opacity - setAttribute - Fill
Group - opacity - style.opacity

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 benchmark test case and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Purpose:**

The primary purpose of this benchmark is to compare different methods for altering SVG properties, specifically opacity. The test aims to determine which method is faster and more efficient between two approaches:

1. Setting attributes using `setAttribute()` (e.g., `elementA.setAttribute("opacity", i);`)
2. Setting styles using CSS-like syntax (e.g., `elementA.style.opacity = i;`)

**Library:**

The benchmark uses the SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) library, which is a standard markup language for creating vector graphics on the web.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**

There's no explicit mention of any special JavaScript features or syntax in this benchmark. However, it does use CSS-like syntax for setting styles, which might be a subtle difference from traditional JavaScript methods.

Now, let's dive into the different test cases:

1. **Single - opacity - setAttribute - opacity**: This test case compares two approaches:
	* Setting attributes using `setAttribute()` (as shown in the benchmark definition).
	* Setting attributes with an additional "opacity" value to set the attribute directly (e.g., `elementA.setAttribute("opacity", i);`).
2. **Single - opacity - style.opacity**: This test case compares two approaches:
	* Setting styles using CSS-like syntax (as shown in the benchmark definition).
	* Setting styles without the "opacity" prefix (e.g., `elementA.style.opacity = i;`).
3. **Group - opacity - setAttribute - Fill**: This test case is slightly different from the previous ones, as it uses an additional `<g>` element to group other SVG elements.
4. **Group - opacity - style.opacity**: Similar to the previous one, but without the additional `Fill` attribute.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches:**

1. **setAttribute() vs. style.opacity**:
	* `setAttribute()` can be faster for simple attribute updates, as it avoids CSS parsing and execution.
	* However, setting attributes with an additional value might lead to slower performance due to the overhead of parsing and executing the value.
2. **Style.opacity vs. style.opacity without prefix**: Setting styles using CSS-like syntax can be faster when the property is directly accessible (e.g., `elementA.style.opacity`), as it avoids the overhead of setting an attribute with a specific value.

**Other Considerations:**

* The benchmark only tests the performance of these two approaches and does not consider other factors like browser-specific quirks or optimizations.
* The test cases use a small number of iterations (10,000) to measure performance. A larger number of iterations might provide more accurate results.
* The benchmark does not account for potential side effects or interactions between different SVG elements.

**Alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative benchmarks or testing frameworks for JavaScript performance, consider:

1. **Benchmark.js**: A popular benchmarking library that provides a simple way to write and run microbenchmarks.
2. **JSPerf**: A web-based platform for running JavaScript benchmarks and comparing browser-specific results.
3. **BenchmarkHub**: An open-source benchmarking framework that allows you to create and run custom benchmarks.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 15_6_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.6.1 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 15 on iOS 15.6.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Single - opacity - setAttribute - opacity	164.8 Ops/sec
Single - opacity - style.opacity	200.0 Ops/sec
Group - opacity - setAttribute - Fill	401.2 Ops/sec
Group - opacity - style.opacity	378.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

TY_svg_stackCompare_v005 (version: 0)

Testing different methods for altering svg properties

Comparing performance of: Single - opacity - setAttribute - opacity vs Single - opacity - style.opacity vs Group - opacity - setAttribute - Fill vs Group - opacity - style.opacity

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Single - opacity - setAttribute - opacity

Single - opacity - style.opacity

Group - opacity - setAttribute - Fill

Group - opacity - style.opacity

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):