Benchmark: JS: insertBefore vs prepend 2

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var container = document.getElementById("container");
var paragraphs = new Array( 100 ).fill( 'p' );

Tests:

insertBefore
paragraphs.forEach( p => container.insertBefore( document.createElement( p ), null ) );
prepend
paragraphs.forEach( p => container.prepend( document.createElement( p ) ) );

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
insertBefore
prepend

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two JavaScript methods: `insertBefore` and `prepend`. Both methods are used to add elements to a DOM container, but they differ in how they insert the new element.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Insert Before (`insertBefore`)**: This method inserts a new element before a specified reference element.
2. **Prepend (`prepend`)**: This method inserts a new element at the beginning of the container.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Insert Before (`insertBefore`)**:
	+ Pros:
		- More flexible, as you can insert elements anywhere in the DOM tree.
		- Can be more efficient for inserting elements at specific positions.
	+ Cons:
		- May require more DOM manipulation, which can lead to slower performance.
* **Prepend (`prepend`)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Simpler and faster, as it only involves adding a single element to the beginning of the container.
	+ Cons:
		- Less flexible, as you're limited to inserting elements at the beginning.

**Library and Syntax**

The benchmark uses the `document.createElement()` method to create new HTML elements. This is a standard JavaScript API for creating DOM elements.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

*   **DOM Manipulation**: Both methods involve manipulating the DOM, which can impact performance.
*   **Cache and Reuse**: Some modern browsers have cache and reuse mechanisms that can improve performance by reusing existing DOM elements. However, these mechanisms might not be enabled or may have a significant overhead.
*   **Browser Variations**: Different browsers may implement `insertBefore` and `prepend` differently, which could affect the results.

**Alternatives**

For similar benchmarks, you can explore other JavaScript methods for inserting elements into the DOM, such as:

*   Using `appendChild()` instead of `insertBefore` or `prepend`.
*   Utilizing libraries like React or Angular, which provide optimized DOM manipulation APIs.
*   Examining browser-specific APIs for performance-critical insertions.

To run this benchmark in your own environment, follow these steps:

1.  Create a new HTML file with the provided `<div id="container"></div>` content.
2.  Include JavaScript files containing the `paragraphs` array and DOM manipulation code.
3.  Modify the JavaScript code to include both `insertBefore` and `prepend` methods for comparison.
4.  Run the benchmark using your preferred method (e.g., Node.js, a browser's DevTools).

By analyzing this benchmark, you'll gain insight into the performance differences between these two essential DOM manipulation methods in JavaScript.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
insertBefore	603.9 Ops/sec
prepend	557.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JS: insertBefore vs prepend 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: insertBefore vs prepend

Created: 9 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

insertBefore

prepend

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):