Benchmark: ultratest - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<table id="tbl">
<tbody></tbody>
</table>

Script Preparation code:

var table = tbl.tBodies[0];
var data = { a: 'a', b: 'b', c: 'c', d: 'd', e: 'e', f: 'f', g: 'g' };

Tests:

x
var row=tbl.insertRow(-1) row.insertCell(-1).innerHTML='<a href="'+data.a+'"><img src="media/'+data.a+'.gif" alt="" border="0"></a>'; row.insertCell(-1).innerHTML='<a href="'+data.a+'" title="thumbnail/'+data.a+'.jpg">'+data.a+'</a><div></div>'; row.insertCell(-1).innerHTML=data.a; row.insertCell(-1).innerHTML=data.b; row.insertCell(-1).innerHTML=data.c; row.insertCell(-1).innerHTML=data.d; row.insertCell(-1).innerHTML=data.e; row.insertCell(-1).innerHTML=data.f; row.insertCell(-1).innerHTML=data.g;
y
var row='<tr>'; row+='<a href="'+data.a+'"><img src="media/'+data.a+'.gif" alt="" border="0"></a>'; row+='<a href="'+data.a+'" title="thumbnail/'+data.a+'.jpg">'+data.a+'</a><div></div>'; row+='<td>'+data.a+'</td>'; row+='<td>'+data.b+'</td>'; row+='<td>'+data.c+'</td>'; row+='<td>'+data.d+'</td>'; row+='<td>'+data.e+'</td>'; row+='<td>'+data.f+'</td>'; row+='<td>'+data.g+'</td>'; table.innerHTML =row;
z
var row='<tr>'; row+='<a href="'+data.a+'"><img src="media/'+data.a+'.gif" alt="" border="0"></a>'; row+='<a href="'+data.a+'" title="thumbnail/'+data.a+'.jpg">'+data.a+'</a><div></div>'; row+='<td>'+data.a+'</td>'; row+='<td>'+data.b+'</td>'; row+='<td>'+data.c+'</td>'; row+='<td>'+data.d+'</td>'; row+='<td>'+data.e+'</td>'; row+='<td>'+data.f+'</td>'; row+='<td>'+data.g+'</td>'; table.insertAdjacentHTML('beforeend', row);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
x
y
z

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 Waterfox/91.10.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 91 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
x	5768.5 Ops/sec
y	19726.8 Ops/sec
z	20179.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of inserting HTML rows into an existing table using different approaches.

**Options Compared**

Three options are compared:

1. **Using `insertRow()` and `innerHTML`**: This approach involves creating a new row using `insertRow(-1)` and then setting its innerHTML properties to generate the desired HTML structure.
2. **Using a string template**: In this approach, a string template is defined that includes placeholders for the data values. The template is then used to create the HTML row by replacing the placeholders with actual values.
3. **Using `insertAdjacentHTML()`**: This approach uses the `insertAdjacentHTML()` method to add a new HTML element (in this case, a table row) directly into the document.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Inserting rows using `insertRow()` and `innerHTML`**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand and implement, works well for small datasets.
	* Cons: Can be slow for large datasets due to repeated DOM manipulations, generates unnecessary HTML.
2. **Using string templates**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and easy to maintain for large datasets.
	* Cons: Requires defining the template string upfront, which can be tedious.
3. **Using `insertAdjacentHTML()`**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and doesn't generate unnecessary HTML, can be used with existing templates.
	* Cons: May not work in older browsers that don't support `insertAdjacentHTML()`, requires more complex setup.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses the `tbl` object, which is assumed to represent a table element. The exact purpose of this object is not specified, but it is likely part of the MeasureThat.net testing framework or a custom implementation.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses ES6 template literals (``) for string templating and the `insertAdjacentHTML()` method, which are features introduced in ECMAScript 2015. These features are not essential to understanding the benchmark, but they do reflect modern JavaScript best practices.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches or consider optimizing your own implementation:

* **Using a library like jQuery**: Libraries like jQuery provide more convenient methods for manipulating DOM elements and may offer performance benefits.
* **Caching and memoization**: Consider implementing caching and memoization techniques to improve performance by avoiding repeated DOM manipulations.
* **Web workers or parallel processing**: If the benchmark is computationally intensive, you might consider using web workers or parallel processing techniques to take advantage of multiple CPU cores.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require more complex setup or modifications to your code.

Related benchmarks:

ultratest (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: x vs y vs z

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

x

y

z

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):