Benchmark: textContent vs replaceChildrenñl2

HTML Preparation code:

<table>
  <tr>
    <td id="title"><div><div><div>asd sad sa dsad</div></div></div></td>
    <td id="url"><div><div><div>asd sad sa dsad</div></div></div></td>
  </tr>
</table>

Script Preparation code:

const title = document.getElementById('title');
const url = document.getElementById('url');

Tests:

textContent
title.textContent = ""; url.textContent = "";
replaceChildren
title.replaceChildren(); url.replaceChildren();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
textContent
replaceChildren

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test is comparing the performance of two approaches for updating text content on HTML elements: `textContent` and `replaceChildren`.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`textContent`**: This method updates the text content of an element by setting its `textContent` property to a new string.
2. **`replaceChildren`**: This method replaces the child nodes of an element with new ones, and then updates the `textContent` property of the resulting node.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`textContent`**:
	+ Pros: Fast and efficient, as it only updates the text content without modifying the DOM.
	+ Cons: May not work correctly if the element has other properties or attributes that are not text content.
* **`replaceChildren`**:
	+ Pros: Can be used to update both text content and other properties or attributes of an element.
	+ Cons: Slower than `textContent`, as it involves modifying the DOM.

**Library Used**

There is no specific library being tested in this benchmark. The test only uses native JavaScript features.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None, as the test only uses standard JavaScript features without any special syntax or features like async/await, callbacks, etc.

**Other Considerations**

When deciding between `textContent` and `replaceChildren`, it's essential to consider the specific requirements of your use case. If you only need to update text content, `textContent` is likely a better choice for performance reasons. However, if you need to update other properties or attributes of an element, `replaceChildren` might be a better option.

**Alternatives**

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

* Using `innerHTML` instead of `textContent` (though this is generally discouraged due to security concerns)
* Using a library like jQuery to simplify DOM updates
* Using Web Workers or other parallel execution techniques to optimize performance

Keep in mind that the choice of approach will depend on your specific requirements and constraints.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/117.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 117 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
textContent	785614.8 Ops/sec
replaceChildren	771396.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

textContent vs replaceChildrenñl2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: textContent vs replaceChildren

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

textContent

replaceChildren

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):