Benchmark: Test Types of DOM Appending

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.12.4.min.js"></script>
<div id="appendTo"></div>

Script Preparation code:

var elemId = 'removeThis',
    elemIndex = 0,
    elemLang = 'en',
    elemTitle = 'dummyTitle',
    elemText = 'dummyText';

Tests:

jQuery
var foo = $('<span>',{ id: elemId, lang: elemLang, title: elemTitle, tabindex: elemIndex }).text(elemText); $('#appendTo').append(foo); $('#removeThis').remove();
String
var foo = '<span id="' + elemId + '" lang="' + elemLang + '" title="' + elemTitle + '" tabindex="' + elemIndex + '">' + elemText + '</span>'; $('#appendTo').append(foo); $('#removeThis').remove();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
String

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 11 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between creating HTML elements using jQuery and using strings directly in JavaScript. The goal is to determine which approach is faster for appending DOM elements.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines variables that will be used throughout the benchmark:

* `elemId`: a string identifier for the element
* `elemIndex`: an integer index value
* `elemLang`: a string language value
* `elemTitle`: a string title value
* `elemText`: a string text value

These variables are assigned values using the script preparation code, which is executed before running each test case.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a script tag that loads jQuery version 1.12.4 and an empty `<div>` element with an ID of "appendTo". This setup will be used to append elements created in the benchmark to the DOM.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

### Test Case 1: jQuery

The first test case uses jQuery to create a new `<span>` element with attributes defined by the `elemId`, `elemLang`, `elemTitle`, and `elemIndex` variables. The `text()` method is then used to set the text content of the element, followed by appending the element to the "appendTo" div using the `append()` method.

After that, the element identified by `elemId` (i.e., "removeThis") is removed from the DOM.

The test case also defines a variable `foo` with the created jQuery element and assigns it to the `$('#appendTo').append(foo)` line, which appends the element to the "appendTo" div.

**Test Case 2: String**

The second test case creates an HTML string directly using template literals. The same attributes defined in the script preparation code are used to construct the string.

The string is then assigned to a variable `foo` and appended to the "appendTo" div using the `$('#appendTo').append(foo)` method.

**Library Used**

In both test cases, jQuery is used as a library for creating HTML elements. The `jQuery` library provides a convenient way to create DOM elements with attributes and methods for manipulating the DOM.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

This benchmark uses template literals ( introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to create the HTML string directly. Template literals provide a concise way to embed expressions inside string literals, making it easier to construct dynamic strings without concatenating or using `+`.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches:**

1. **jQuery Approach**:
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to work with DOM elements and attributes.
		+ Provides a convenient method for manipulating the DOM (e.g., `append()`, `remove()`).
	* Cons:
		+ Additional overhead due to the jQuery library being included.
		+ May introduce performance overhead due to the extra function calls.
2. **String Approach**:
	* Pros:
		+ No additional library is required.
		+ Can be more efficient since it eliminates the need for the jQuery library's functions.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual DOM element construction, which can lead to errors and inconsistencies.

**Other Alternatives:**

1. **DOM manipulation without libraries**: Instead of using a library like jQuery, you could use native JavaScript methods (e.g., `createElement()`, `appendChild()`). This approach eliminates the need for an additional library but requires more manual effort.
2. **Using other HTML templating engines**: Other options like Handlebars or Pug might provide alternatives to template literals, offering more features and flexibility.

Keep in mind that this benchmark is focused on comparing two specific approaches (jQuery vs. strings) rather than evaluating the overall performance of DOM manipulation techniques.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/54.0.2840.59 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 54 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery	23143.1 Ops/sec
String	17094.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test Types of DOM Appending (version: 0)

Append jQuery elem v string

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs String

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

String

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 11 days ago):