Benchmark: Append children or appendChild in loop

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var root = document.getElementById('root');
var children = [
    document.createElement('span'),
    document.createElement('span'),
    document.createElement('span'),
    document.createElement('span'),
    document.createElement('span'),
];

Tests:

Append
root.append(...children);
Append in loop
for (let i = 0; i < 5; i++) { root.appendChild(children[i]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Append
Append in loop

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 and explain what is being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: appending children to an element using the `append()` method versus using a loop to append each child individually. The benchmark is designed to test the speed of this specific JavaScript operation on a variety of devices and browsers.

**Options being compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`root.append(...children)`**: This approach uses the `append()` method to add multiple children to an element.
2. **`for (let i = 0; i < 5; i++) { root.appendChild(children[i]); }`**: This approach uses a loop to append each child individually.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **`root.append(...children)`**
	* Pros:
		+ Generally faster, as it's optimized for bulk appending.
		+ Can be more efficient in terms of DOM updates.
	* Cons:
		+ May not work well with dynamic or complex child elements.
		+ Can lead to unexpected behavior if the `append()` method is not properly configured.
2. **`for (let i = 0; i < 5; i++) { root.appendChild(children[i]); }`**
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible and adaptable for dynamic or complex child elements.
		+ Allows for better control over the appending process.
	* Cons:
		+ Generally slower than using `append()`, especially for large numbers of children.
		+ May require more DOM updates, which can be computationally expensive.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that the benchmark might use libraries like jQuery or a custom implementation to simplify the appending process.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON. The benchmark only deals with basic JavaScript operations and DOM manipulation.

**Other alternatives**

Other approaches could include:

1. **`root.insertAdjacentHTML()`**: This method can be used to append HTML fragments to an element, which might offer better performance for certain use cases.
2. **`DOM manipulation using Array.prototype.forEach()`**: Instead of a traditional `for` loop, this approach uses the `forEach()` method on an array of child elements.
3. **`using a library like React or Angular`**: These frameworks provide optimized DOM updates and appending mechanisms that might offer better performance.

Keep in mind that the benchmark's focus is on comparing the two specific approaches mentioned, rather than exploring alternative methods entirely.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Append	73562.4 Ops/sec
Append in loop	71467.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Append children or appendChild in loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Append vs Append in loop

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Append

Append in loop

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):