Benchmark: replacing node text

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="container"></div>

Script Preparation code:

var container = document.getElementById("container");

var shortString = "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.";
var longString = "Curabitur eros quam, pellentesque a tellus vestibulum, imperdiet condimentum nibh. Nullam sollicitudin porta nunc quis feugiat. Pellentesque tincidunt commodo dolor a ullamcorper. Etiam accumsan mauris ac ex interdum ornare. Sed sodales sem sit amet risus viverra efficitur. Phasellus eget leo et mauris volutpat congue. Nam nisl sapien, scelerisque vel pulvinar quis, molestie luctus ex. Integer vel dolor hendrerit, lobortis nisi ac, laoreet velit. Duis luctus sodales pulvinar.";

Tests:

innerHTML shortString
container.innerHTML = shortString;
innerHTML longString
container.innerHTML = longString;
textContent shortString
container.textContent = shortString;
textContent longString
container.textContent = longString;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
innerHTML shortString
innerHTML longString
textContent shortString
textContent longString

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark and explore what's being tested, the options compared, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two text content replacement methods in JavaScript: `innerHTML` and `textContent`. The test case consists of replacing a short string (`"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet."`) with a long string (`"Curabitur eros quam, pellentesque a tellus vestibulum, imperdiet condimentum nibh. Nullam sollicitudin porta nunc quis feugiat. Pellentesque tincidunt commodo dolor a ullamcorper. Etiam accumsan mauris ac ex interdum ornare. Sed sodales sem sit amet risus viverra efficitur. Phasellus eget leo et mauris volutpat congue. Nam nisl sapien, scelerisque vel pulvinar quis, molestie luctus ex. Integer vel dolor hendrerit, lobortis nisi ac, laoreet velit. Duis luctus sodales pulvinar."`).

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is:

```javascript
var container = document.getElementById("container");
var shortString = "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.";
var longString = "Curabitur eros quam, pellentesque a tellus vestibulum, imperdiet condimentum nibh. Nullam sollicitudin porta nunc quis feugiat. Pellentesque tincidunt commodo dolor a ullamcorper. Etiam accumsan mauris ac ex interdum ornare. Sed sodales sem sit amet risus viverra efficitur. Phasellus eget leo et mauris volutpat congue. Nam nisl sapien, scelerisque vel pulvinar quis, molestie luctus ex. Integer vel dolor hendrerit, lobortis nisi ac, laoreet velit. Duis luctus sodales pulvinar.";
```

The HTML preparation code is:

```html
<div id="container"></div>
```

**Individual Test Cases**

There are four test cases:

1. `innerHTML  shortString`
2. `innerHTML  longString`
3. `textContent  shortString`
4. `textContent  longString`

Each test case consists of replacing the text content of an HTML container element with either a short string or a long string using either `innerHTML` or `textContent`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two replacement methods:

1. `innerHTML`: Replaces the HTML content of an element.
2. `textContent`: Replaces the text content of an element.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**innerHTML**

Pros:

* More flexible for complex DOM structures
* Supports HTML tags and attributes

Cons:

* May incur additional overhead due to HTML parsing and serialization
* Can lead to performance issues if not used carefully

**textContent**

Pros:

* Faster and more efficient for simple text content replacements
* Does not incur the same overhead as `innerHTML`

Cons:

* Limited support for complex DOM structures
* No support for HTML tags or attributes

**Other Considerations**

When using `innerHTML`, it's essential to use a sandboxed environment (e.g., `document.body.innerHTML`) to prevent cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks. In contrast, `textContent` is generally safer to use in most scenarios.

**Alternative Methods**

Besides `innerHTML` and `textContent`, there are other methods for replacing text content:

1. `replaceChild()`: Replaces the child element with a new one.
2. `setInnerHTML()` (not widely supported): Replaces the HTML content of an element.
3. Using `string.prototype.replace()` or regular expressions to manipulate the text content.

However, these alternatives are not commonly used and may incur additional overhead compared to `innerHTML` and `textContent`.

**Library**

There is no library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/113.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 113 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
innerHTML shortString	363047.0 Ops/sec
innerHTML longString	177652.0 Ops/sec
textContent shortString	369765.2 Ops/sec
textContent longString	287717.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

replacing node text (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: innerHTML shortString vs innerHTML longString vs textContent shortString vs textContent longString

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

innerHTML shortString

innerHTML longString

textContent shortString

textContent longString

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):