Benchmark: createElement vs cloneNode(false)

Tests:

createElement
var list = [], n = 0; while(true) { n++; list.push(document.createElement('div')); if(n===100000) break; }
cloneNode
var list = [], n = 0, node = document.createElement('div'); while(true) { n++; list.push(node.cloneNode(false)); if(n===100000) break; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
createElement
cloneNode

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that compares two approaches to create new DOM elements:

1. `createElement` method, which creates a new element by calling `document.createElement('div')`.
2. `cloneNode(false)` method, which clones an existing element and then returns the cloned node.

**Options compared:**

Two options are being compared:

* **Creating a new element from scratch using `createElement`:**
	+ Pros:
		- Creates a completely new DOM element with no inheritance or context.
		- Can be faster for complex elements or those requiring custom attributes.
	+ Cons:
		- May result in more memory usage due to the creation of an entirely new object.
		- Can lead to unnecessary overhead if not necessary.
* **Cloning an existing element using `cloneNode(false)`:**
	+ Pros:
		- Reuses an existing DOM element, potentially reducing memory usage.
		- Avoids unnecessary overhead associated with creating a new element from scratch.
	+ Cons:
		- Creates a new DOM element that is not the original, which may lead to unexpected behavior.
		- May be slower for complex elements or those requiring custom attributes.

**Library and its purpose:**

The `cloneNode(false)` method is a built-in method in JavaScript's DOM API. It takes an existing element as an argument and returns a deep copy of that element, excluding any event listeners. The `false` parameter specifies whether to perform a shallow or deep clone. In this benchmark, it's used with `false`, indicating a deep clone.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It solely relies on standard JavaScript and DOM APIs.

**Other alternatives:**

For creating new DOM elements, alternative approaches could include:

1. **DOMParser**: Can parse HTML strings to create new DOM elements.
2. **DocumentFragment**: A lightweight container for grouping DOM nodes; can be used to create new elements or update existing ones.
3. **template literals**: Can generate HTML strings and then use `document.createElement` to create new elements.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on specific requirements, such as performance, memory usage, or desired behavior.

**Benchmark preparation code:**

The provided JSON does not include any script preparation code, but it's likely that some basic setup is necessary before running the benchmark, such as initializing variables or importing libraries. The `Html Preparation Code` field is also empty, suggesting that no specific HTML structure is being used for this benchmark.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/83.0.4103.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 83 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
createElement	6.8 Ops/sec
cloneNode	15.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

createElement vs cloneNode(false) (version: 0)

Faster way to create new dom elements before insertion

Comparing performance of: createElement vs cloneNode

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

createElement

cloneNode

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):