Benchmark: DOM manipulation vs innerhtml

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="root"></div>

Tests:

innerHTML
let root = document.querySelector('#root') root.innerHTML = `<div id="4/4b809ca8-b600-a286-62b6-83a6a5fc4310" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; white-space: nowrap;">0</div>`
DOM manipulation
let root = document.querySelector('#root') let itemBox = document.createElement('div') itemBox.id = "4/4b809ca8-b600-a286-62b6-83a6a5fc4310" itemBox.style = "left: 0px; top: 0px; white-space: nowrap;" itemBox.innerHTML = `0` root.appendChild(itemBox)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
innerHTML
DOM manipulation

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that compares two approaches for setting the content of an HTML element: using `innerHTML` and manual DOM manipulation (e.g., creating a new element, setting its attributes, and appending it to another element).

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests two options:

1. **innerHTML**: This approach uses the `innerHTML` property of the `Element` interface to set the content of an HTML element.
2. **DOM Manipulation**: This approach creates a new element using `document.createElement()`, sets its attributes, and appends it to another element using `appendChild()`.

**Pros and Cons**

**innerHTML**:

Pros:

* Fast and concise
* Easy to use for simple cases

Cons:

* Can be slow if the content is large or complex (because of JavaScript engine's DOM parsing overhead)
* Can lead to security issues if not sanitized properly

**DOM Manipulation**:

Pros:

* More control over the rendering process
* Can avoid some of the security concerns associated with `innerHTML`

Cons:

* Requires more code and can be slower due to the overhead of creating and manipulating elements
* May have performance implications depending on the browser's DOM implementation

**Other Considerations**

Both approaches have their trade-offs. If you need to set simple, static content, `innerHTML` might be a better choice. However, if you're working with dynamic content or require more control over the rendering process, manual DOM manipulation might be a better fit.

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, no specific libraries are used. However, if you're interested in exploring library-specific optimizations, some JavaScript engines (like V8) have built-in optimizations for certain libraries (e.g., React or Angular).

**Special JS Feature**

There is one special feature being tested here: the `style` attribute on the created element. In modern browsers, this can affect rendering performance because it introduces a CSS parser step.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to benchmarking JavaScript performance, consider:

1. **Benchmarking frameworks**: Tools like Benchmark.js, Jest-Benchmark, or Cypress provide more comprehensive testing capabilities.
2. **WebAssembly benchmarks**: If you're interested in exploring the performance of WebAssembly (WASM) code, there are specialized benchmarking tools available.

In summary, MeasureThat.net provides a simple yet effective way to compare JavaScript performance for specific use cases, like DOM manipulation and `innerHTML` usage.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
innerHTML	407681.3 Ops/sec
DOM manipulation	397179.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

DOM manipulation vs innerhtml (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: innerHTML vs DOM manipulation

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

innerHTML

DOM manipulation

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):