Benchmark: map vs for loop cloneNode

Script Preparation code:

let V=[document.createElement('div'),document.createElement('p'),document.createElement('span'),document.createElement('a')]
let x=[0,0,0,0,1,2,3,3,2,1,0,0,1,2,  0,0,0,0,1,2,3,3,2,1,0,0,1,2, 0,0,0,0,1,2,3,3,2,1,0,0,1,2, 0,0,0,0,1,2,3,3,2,1,0,0,1,2, 0,0,0,0,1,2,3,3,2,1,0,0,1,2, 0,0,0,0,1,2,3,3,2,1,0,0,1,2]
let cn=['a','b','c','a','b','c','a','b','c','a','b','c','a','b']
let y=[[0,'a'],[0,'a'],[0,'a'],[0,'a'],[0,'a'],[0,'a'],[0,'a'],[0,'a'],[0,'a'],[0,'a'],[0,'a'],[0,'a'],[0,'a'],[0,'a']]
let z=[0,'a',0,'a',0,'a',0,'a',0,'a',0,'a',0,'a',0,'a',0,'a',0,'a',0,'a',0,'a',0,'a',0,'a']
let w=[0,0,0,0,1,2,3,3,2,1,0,0,1,2,'a','b','c','a','b','c','a','b','c','a','b','c','a','b']
let B=(a,b)=>{
  let d=V[a].cloneNode();
  d.className=b;
  return d;
}

Tests:

for loop
let z = x.map(i => V[i].cloneNode());
combined map
let z = y.map(i => B(i[0],i[1]));
looped together
let z=Array(14);for(let i=0;i<14;++i){z[i]=V[x[i]].cloneNode();z[i].className=cn[i];}
looped together double list
let z=Array(14);for(let i=0;i<14;++i){z[i]=V[w[i]].cloneNode();z[i].className=w[i+14];}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for loop
combined map
looped together
looped together double list

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for loop	110815.0 Ops/sec
combined map	414596.1 Ops/sec
looped together	400928.3 Ops/sec
looped together double list	398348.7 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 3 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark "createElement vs C" compares two different approaches for creating DOM elements in a web browser using JavaScript. Below, I’ll describe the two test cases, their pros and cons, along with other considerations.

### Test Cases

1. **`createElement` Case**
   - **Benchmark Definition**: The benchmark measures the performance of directly calling `document.createElement` multiple times.
   - **Test Name**: `createElement`
   - **Code**:
     ```javascript
     let V=[document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('p'), document.createElement('span'), 
           document.createElement('a'), document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('p'), 
           document.createElement('span'), document.createElement('a'), 
           document.createElement('div'), document.createElement('p')]
     ```

2. **`C` Case**
   - **Benchmark Definition**: The benchmark evaluates the performance of using a function `C(a)` that wraps `document.createElement`.
   - **Test Name**: `C`
   - **Code**:
     ```javascript
     let C=(a)=>{return document.createElement(a)};
     let V=[C('div'), C('p'), C('span'), C('a'), 
           C('div'), C('p'), C('span'), C('a'), 
           C('div'), C('p')]
     ```

### Performance Results
The benchmark results show that `C` has a slightly higher execution rate with **750,839.25 executions per second** compared to `createElement` at **742,170.5 executions per second**. This indicates that invoking the function `C` for creating elements is marginally more efficient in this test setup.

### Comparison and Analysis

#### Pros and Cons

- **Direct `createElement` (Test Name: `createElement`):**
  - **Pros**: 
    - Simplicity of syntax; straightforward and easy to understand.
    - May perform slightly better in some scenarios where function call overhead is significant.
  - **Cons**: 
    - Directly repeating `createElement` can lead to verbose code.
    - May be less reusable compared to a function approach.

- **Function Wrapper `C` (Test Name: `C`):**
  - **Pros**: 
    - Encapsulates element creation logic, making the code cleaner and promoting reuse.
    - Slightly faster in this benchmark, likely due to less boilerplate code in the benchmark structure.
  - **Cons**: 
    - Added function call overhead for each invocation, though negligible in most cases.
    - Slightly more complex than a direct call, which may not be necessary for all use cases.

### Considerations

- **Readability**: Using a function like `C` may enhance code readability when element creation is spread out across different locations in the codebase. For instance, if the element creation logic needs to be modified, one would only need to change it in one place.

- **Function Overhead**: The slight performance difference indicates that for very high-performance critical applications, the choice of using direct `createElement` or a wrapper function should be benchmarked as seen in this test.

### Alternatives
Other approaches can include:
- **Using Document Fragments**: For creating and appending multiple elements efficiently, document fragments can be utilized to reduce reflow and repaint on the DOM.
- **Using Templates**: Custom HTML templates (using `<template>` elements) can provide a way to define element structures that can be cloned multiple times, potentially improving performance.
- **Vue.js, React, or Other Frameworks**: A modern approach with libraries and frameworks can also lead to better DOM management and optimized rendering strategies.

In conclusion, this benchmark serves to highlight performance differences between two common patterns in DOM manipulation, particularly useful for developers focusing on optimizing web applications.

Related benchmarks:

map vs for loop cloneNode (version: 15)

Comparing performance of: for loop vs combined map vs looped together vs looped together double list

Created: 3 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

for loop

combined map

looped together

looped together double list

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 3 months ago):