Benchmark: Test11111 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Test1
const tagName = 'Test'; const el = document.createElement('div'); el.classList.add('tag', 'js__tag'); el.className = 'tag js__tag'; el.title = tagName; el.innerHTML = `<span class="tag__name js__tag-name">${tagName}</span>`;
Test2
const tagName = 'Test'; const el = document.createElement('div'); const spanName = document.createElement('span'); spanName.className = 'tag__name js__tag-name'; spanName.textContent = tagName; el.appendChild(spanName);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Test1
Test2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript code is crucial in understanding how different approaches and optimizations impact execution speed.

The provided JSON data represents two individual test cases, each with its own script preparation code. Let's break down what's being tested:

**Test Cases:**

1. **Test1**: This test case creates a `<div>` element and adds two class names (`"tag"` and `"js__tag"`), as well as setting the `title` attribute to a variable `tagName`. The element also has an HTML content with a span element containing the same `tagName`.
2. **Test2**: Similar to Test1, but instead of creating a `<div>` element directly, it creates a separate `<span>` element for the text content.

**Options being compared:**

In this benchmark, two different approaches are being compared:

1. **Element creation with `el` vs. `spanName` elements**: In Test1, an entire `<div>` element is created and manipulated. In Test2, only a single `<span>` element is created for the text content.
2. **Class name addition using `classList.add()` vs. `className` attribute assignment**: Both tests use the same method to add class names (either by calling `classList.add()` or assigning the class name directly to the `className` property).

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Element creation with `el`**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient when working with complex elements, as it allows for easier manipulation and styling.
	* Cons: Creates an entire element object, which can lead to memory overhead and slower execution due to the need to traverse and manipulate the DOM tree.
2. **Element creation with `spanName`**:
	* Pros: More lightweight and faster, as only a single text node is created.
	* Cons: Requires creating an additional element for the text content, which can be less efficient in certain scenarios.
3. **Class name addition using `classList.add()` vs. `className` attribute assignment**:
	* Both methods are efficient, but `classList.add()` has some benefits:
		+ It allows for faster iteration and lookup of existing class names.
		+ It's more modern and widely supported.

**Library usage:**

None of the test cases explicitly use any libraries. However, it's worth noting that using libraries like jQuery can significantly impact performance, as they often introduce additional overhead due to their own internal workings.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in these benchmarks. The code is straightforward and only demonstrates basic DOM manipulation techniques.

**Other alternatives:**

For a more comprehensive benchmarking setup, consider exploring the following alternatives:

1. **Benchmarking frameworks:** Utilize libraries like Benchmark.js or jsbench to create more complex and varied benchmarks.
2. **Profiling tools:** Leverage browser profiling tools, such as Chrome DevTools' Profiler or Firefox's Performance Monitor, to gain deeper insights into code execution times.
3. **ES modules and WebAssembly:** Explore using ES modules and WebAssembly for performance-critical code to evaluate potential benefits.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require more setup and expertise, but they can provide a more robust foundation for measuring JavaScript performance.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:126.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/126.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 126 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Test1	62578.9 Ops/sec
Test2	164223.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test11111 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Test1 vs Test2

Created: 5 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Test1

Test2

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):