Benchmark: nodeName - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<html>

<body>
    <div id='test'>
        <div name='a'></div>
        <div name='b'></div>
        <div name='c'></div>
    </div>
</body>

</html>

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

without nodeName
parent.childNodes.forEach(function (node) { let n = node; });
with nodeName
parent.childNodes.forEach(function (node) { let n = node; let x = node.nodeName; });
with nodeName and nextSibling
parent.childNodes.forEach(function (node) { let n = node; let x = node.nodeName; let y = node.nextSibling; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
without nodeName
with nodeName
with nodeName and nextSibling

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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 Edg/117.0.2045.31

Browser/OS: Chrome 117 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
without nodeName	616484.4 Ops/sec
with nodeName	416400.8 Ops/sec
with nodeName and nextSibling	394609.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of iterating over `childNodes` in an HTML element using the `forEach` method, with and without accessing the `nodeName` property. The test cases vary by whether they access the `nodeName` property or not, and also if they access the `nextSibling` property.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code initializes a variable `parent`, which is an HTML element with three child nodes (`a`, `b`, and `c`). This setup is used to create a consistent test environment for each benchmark.

**Html Preparation Code**

The html preparation code generates the HTML structure that will be used by the JavaScript code. It creates an `<html>` element, a `<body>` element, and inside it, three `<div>` elements with names `a`, `b`, and `c`.

**Options Compared**

Three options are compared:

1. **Without nodeName**: The `forEach` method is called on the `childNodes` array without accessing the `nodeName` property.
2. **With nodeName**: The `forEach` method is called on the `childNodes` array, but this time accessing the `nodeName` property for each node.
3. **With nodeName and nextSibling**: This option adds an additional step to the iteration by also accessing the `nextSibling` property for each node.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Without nodeName**:
	+ Pros: Faster iteration since no extra property access is performed.
	+ Cons: May not accurately represent real-world usage, as `nodeName` might be useful in other scenarios.
* **With nodeName**:
	+ Pros: More realistic representation of common use cases, where `nodeName` is often accessed.
	+ Cons: Slower iteration due to the extra property access.
* **With nodeName and nextSibling**:
	+ Pros: Provides a more comprehensive view of how `nextSibling` can be used in conjunction with `nodeName`.
	+ Cons: Even slower iteration compared to without accessing `nodeName`, which may not be significant for most use cases.

**Library Usage**

None of the benchmark code uses any external libraries, so it is self-contained and relies solely on the JavaScript standard library.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly test any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, the use of `forEach` and `childNodes` may be subject to changes in future JavaScript versions or engine implementations.

**Other Alternatives**

To measure performance for similar use cases, you might consider using:

* **Array.prototype.forEach()**: A more general-purpose alternative to `Element.childNodes.forEach()`.
* **Array.prototype.reduce()` or **Array.prototype.some()`**: Other methods that can be used to iterate over arrays or elements.
* **Native Web Workers**: If the benchmark is intended for a specific task that can be parallelized, using Web Workers might provide better performance.

Keep in mind that this benchmark focuses specifically on iterating over `childNodes` and accessing the `nodeName` property.

Related benchmarks:

nodeName (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: without nodeName vs with nodeName vs with nodeName and nextSibling

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

without nodeName

with nodeName

with nodeName and nextSibling

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):