document.body.innerHTML = "";
var root = document.createElement("div");
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
var e = document.createElement("span");
e.innerText = i + " text";
root.appendChild(e);
}
document.body.appendChild(root);
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var root = document.createElement("div");
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
var e = document.createElement("span");
e.innerText = i + " text";
root.appendChild(e);
}
document.body.appendChild(frag);
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
createElement | |
createDocumentFragment |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
createElement | 578.2 Ops/sec |
createDocumentFragment | 600.3 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.
The test measures the performance difference between two approaches: creating an HTML element using document.createElement
versus using document.createDocumentFragment
.
Options being compared:
Pros and Cons of each approach:
createElement
Pros:
Cons:
createDocumentFragment
Pros:
Cons:
Library and its purpose:
In both benchmark test cases, document.createElement
and createDocumentFragment
are native JavaScript methods that don't rely on any external libraries.
Special JS feature or syntax:
There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on comparing the performance of two different DOM manipulation approaches.
Other alternatives:
If you were to optimize HTML rendering for a large dataset, other alternatives could include:
querySelector
instead of getElementById
, can reduce the time spent searching for elements.Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity and overhead, so it's essential to weigh the benefits against the trade-offs.