Benchmark: Check DOM parent

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="a">
    <div id="b">
        <div id="c">
            <div id="d">
                <div id="e">
                    <div id="f">
                        <div id="g">
                            Test
                        </div>
                    </div>
                </div>
            </div>
        </div>
    </div>
</div>

Script Preparation code:

var c = document.getElementById('g');
var b = document.body;

Tests:

1 x parentNode
var n = c.parentNode;
Find parent nodes
var parent = c.parentNode; while (parent && parent !== b) { var n = parent; parent = parent.parentNode; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1 x parentNode
Find parent nodes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark JSON and explain what is being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided benchmark definition consists of two test cases:

1. "Check DOM parent"
	* The script preparation code creates a reference to an element `c` with the id `g`, which is a child of the `body` element `b`.
	* The HTML preparation code generates an HTML structure with multiple nested elements, creating a chain of parents for the `c` element.
2. "Find parent nodes"

The second test case uses the same script and HTML as the first one but introduces a loop to find all parent nodes.

**Options Compared**

In both test cases, we're measuring the performance difference between two approaches:

* Using the built-in `parentNode` property to traverse the DOM tree (Test Case 1: "1 x parentNode")
* Implementing a custom loop to find parent nodes (Test Case 2: "Find parent nodes")

**Pros and Cons**

**1. Built-in `parentNode` approach**

Pros:
	+ Simple, straightforward, and efficient.
	+ Does not require additional memory allocation or complex logic.

Cons:
	+ May be slower due to the overhead of the built-in method call.
	+ Can be affected by browser optimizations or caching.

**2. Custom loop approach**

Pros:
	+ Can potentially be faster if the browser is optimized for this specific use case.
	+ Allows for more control over the traversal process.

Cons:
	+ More complex logic, which can lead to slower performance due to additional overhead.
	+ Requires more memory allocation and potentially more cycles to execute.

**Library and Syntax**

The benchmark uses JavaScript's built-in DOM API, specifically:

* `document.getElementById` (not explicitly mentioned in the code snippet but implied by the `c = document.getElementById('g')` line)
* `while` loop
* `parentNode` property

These are standard JavaScript features widely supported across browsers.

**Special JS Features**

None of the test cases rely on special JavaScript features or syntax that would introduce additional complexity or variations in performance. The tests focus on measuring the performance of basic DOM traversal techniques.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, consider the following:

* **Using `getElementsByClassName`**: Instead of traversing the DOM tree using `parentNode`, you could use `getElementsByClassName` to retrieve elements with a specific class name. This approach might be faster for some browsers.
* **Native Web Workers or WebAssembly**: If performance is critical and micro-optimizations are not sufficient, consider using native Web Workers or WebAssembly to offload computationally expensive tasks.
* **Different traversal algorithms**: Depending on the specific requirements, you could explore alternative traversal algorithms, such as depth-first search (DFS) or breadth-first search (BFS), which might be more suitable for certain use cases.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.3 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 15 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1 x parentNode	20163888.0 Ops/sec
Find parent nodes	2526869.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Check DOM parent (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 x parentNode vs Find parent nodes

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1 x parentNode

Find parent nodes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):