Benchmark: clientHeight + clientWidth vs getComutedStyle()

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="test">test</div>

Script Preparation code:

var element = document.getElementById('test');

Tests:

clientHeight + clientWidth
element.clientHeight; element.clientWidth;
computedStyle
var computedStyle = window.getComputedStyle(element); parseFloat(computedStyle.height); parseFloat(computedStyle.widht);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
clientHeight + clientWidth
computedStyle

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Android 13; Mobile; rv:109.0) Gecko/116.0 Firefox/116.0

Browser/OS: Firefox Mobile 116 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
clientHeight + clientWidth	4047206.0 Ops/sec
computedStyle	548242.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case. In this case, two approaches are being compared:

1. `element.clientHeight + element.clientWidth` (adding client height and width)
2. `window.getComputedStyle(element).height; window.getComputedStyle(element).width` (using the computed style object)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Adding client height and width**:
	+ Pros: Simple, lightweight, and fast.
	+ Cons: May not be accurate due to rounding or truncation errors when adding values.
* **Using `window.getComputedStyle(element)`**:
	+ Pros: More accurate and consistent results, especially for complex layouts.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to the additional function call and object manipulation.

In general, the first approach is faster but less accurate, while the second approach is more accurate but potentially slower.

**Library and Its Purpose**

The `window.getComputedStyle(element)` function is part of the W3C's DOM API. It returns a CSSStyleDeclaration object that contains the computed style properties for an element at a given time. In this benchmark, it's used to access the computed height and width values.

**Special JavaScript Features or Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided code snippets.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need more accurate results or want to explore other approaches, consider:

* Using `getBoundingClientRect()` instead of `clientHeight` and `clientWidth`. `getBoundingClientRect()` returns a more comprehensive set of properties, including the offset top and left values.
* Implementing your own style calculation logic using JavaScript. This can be faster but requires more expertise and maintenance.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided code snippet shows how to prepare for the benchmark:
```javascript
var element = document.getElementById('test');
```
This sets up an HTML element with the id "test" and assigns it to a variable `element`.

**Individual Test Cases**

These test cases are similar, but with slight differences:

1. The first test case measures `element.clientHeight + element.clientWidth`, while the second test case measures the parsed values of `window.getComputedStyle(element).height` and `window.getComputedStyle(element).width`.
2. In the second test case, there's a typo: it should be `window.getComputedStyle(element).width` instead of `window.getComputedStyle(element).widht`.

Overall, these benchmarking tests help developers understand how different approaches can affect performance in JavaScript applications.

Related benchmarks:

clientHeight + clientWidth vs getComutedStyle() (version: 0)

element.clientHeight + element.clientWidth vs window.getComputedStyle(element)

Comparing performance of: clientHeight + clientWidth vs computedStyle

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

clientHeight + clientWidth

computedStyle

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):