Benchmark: replaceWith vs replaceChild without iframe

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var elements = [document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('div')];
var fragment = document.createDocumentFragment();
var container = document.getElementById('container');

elements.forEach(element => fragment.appendChild(element));
container.appendChild(fragment);

Tests:

replaceChild
var changeIndex = 1; elements[changeIndex] = document.createElement('div'); container.replaceChild(elements[changeIndex], container.children[changeIndex]);
replaceWith
var changeIndex = 1; elements[changeIndex] = document.createElement('div'); container.children[changeIndex].replaceWith(elements[changeIndex])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replaceChild
replaceWith

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Browser/OS: Chrome 107 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replaceChild	679035.2 Ops/sec
replaceWith	695843.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for replacing elements in an HTML document: `replaceChild` and `replaceWith`. The test creates two elements, appends them to a fragment, and then replaces one of the original elements with a new element using each of these methods.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of:

1. `replaceChild`: Replaces the specified child node with a new node.
2. `replaceWith`: Replaces all child nodes of a specified node with a new node.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. `replaceChild`:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient when only replacing one child node, as it avoids the overhead of creating a new fragment.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for large collections of child nodes, as it requires iterating over the entire list to find the correct index.
2. `replaceWith`:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient when replacing multiple child nodes at once, as it uses a single operation to update all child nodes.
	* Cons: May have higher overhead due to creating a new fragment and updating its child nodes.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses the `document` object and its associated methods (`createElement`, `appendChild`, `replaceChild`, and `replaceWith`). These are standard DOM (Document Object Model) APIs that provide access to HTML documents.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. It only relies on the standard DOM API.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code creates two elements, a fragment, and a container element with an ID of "container". The script then appends each element to the fragment and appends the fragment to the container.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to these approaches, consider:

1. `innerHTML`: Replaces the HTML content of an element by replacing its innerHTML property.
2. `appendChild` with a single child node: Instead of creating a new element and replacing it, append only the replacement node to the original parent element.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own performance implications and may not be suitable for all use cases.

For more complex DOM manipulations, consider using libraries like jQuery or React, which provide additional APIs and abstractions for working with HTML documents.

Related benchmarks:

replaceWith vs replaceChild without iframe (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: replaceChild vs replaceWith

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

replaceChild

replaceWith

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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