Benchmark: createElement vs cloneNode()

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()); 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 one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON to understand what is being tested and compare different approaches.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests two ways to create new DOM elements: `createElement` and `cloneNode()`. The goal is to determine which method is faster for creating a large number of elements before inserting them into the document.

**Options compared:**

* `createElement`: Creates a new DOM element from scratch using the `document.createElement()` method.
* `cloneNode`: Clones an existing DOM node (in this case, a `div` element) using the `node.cloneNode()` method to create multiple copies of it.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **createElement**: Pros:
	+ Creates new elements from scratch, which can be beneficial if you need to customize their properties or add attributes.
	+ Can be faster for small to medium-sized datasets.
* Cons:
	+ Can lead to a lot of overhead in terms of DOM node creation and garbage collection.
	+ May result in slower performance for large datasets due to the repeated creation of new elements.
* `cloneNode`: Pros:
	+ Reuses existing nodes, which can reduce memory allocation and deallocation.
	+ Can be faster for large datasets since it avoids the overhead of creating new elements from scratch.
* Cons:
	+ May not work as expected if you need to customize the cloned node's properties or add attributes.
	+ The cloned nodes may have a different structure or behavior than the original node.

**Library usage:**

None of the test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax:**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It focuses solely on comparing two DOM-related methods.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, consider:

* Using `document.createDocumentFragment()` to create a container element and append your elements to it.
* Utilizing a library like React or Angular, which provide optimized ways to manage DOM elements.
* Implementing a custom solution using Web Workers or other parallel processing techniques.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and code complexity.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/79.0.3945.130 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 79 on Mac OS X 10.15.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
createElement	17.8 Ops/sec
cloneNode	24.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

createElement vs cloneNode() (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 one month ago):