Benchmark: Web Component append content 4 ways

Script Preparation code:

      customElements.define('x-innerhtml', class extends HTMLElement {
          connectedCallback() {
              this.innerHTML = '<span>.</span> ';
          }
      });
      customElements.define('x-appendraw', class extends HTMLElement {
          connectedCallback() {
              const span = document.createElement('span');
              span.textContent = '. ';
              this.append(span);
          }
      });
      customElements.define('x-appendchildraw', class extends HTMLElement {
          connectedCallback() {
              const span = document.createElement('span');
              span.textContent = '. ';
              this.appendChild(span);
          }
      });

      const createElement = (tag, props = {}) => Object.assign(document.createElement(tag), props);

      customElements.define('x-prepend', class extends HTMLElement {
          connectedCallback() {
              this.prepend(createElement("span", {
                  textContent: ". "
              }));
          }
      });
      customElements.define('x-append', class extends HTMLElement {
          connectedCallback() {
              this.append(createElement("span", {
                  textContent: ". "
              }));
          }
      });

Tests:

x-innerHTML
document.createElement("x-innerhtml");
x-appendraw
document.createElement("x-appendraw");
x-appenchilddraw
document.createElement("x-appendchildraw");
x-prepend
document.createElement("x-prepend");
x-append
document.createElement("x-append");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
x-innerHTML
x-appendraw
x-appenchilddraw
x-prepend
x-append

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 benchmark and its various components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark, named "Web Component append content 4 ways", tests the performance of different methods for appending content to a Web Component (WC). A WC is an HTML element that can be customized with custom properties. In this case, we're creating four types of WCs:

1. `x-innerHTML`
2. `x-appendraw`
3. `x-appendchildraw`
4. `x-prepend`
5. `x-append`

**Test Case Breakdown**

Each test case measures the performance of a specific WC method.

1. **`x-innerHTML`**: Tests appending content using the `innerHTML` property.
	* Pros: Easy to implement, widely supported.
	* Cons: May have security implications due to potential XSS vulnerabilities.
2. **`x-appendraw`**: Tests appending content using the `append()` method.
	* Pros: Native support in most browsers, efficient.
	* Cons: Requires creating a new element and passing it to the WC.
3. **`x-appendchildraw`**: Tests appending content using the `appendChild()` method.
	* Pros: Native support in most browsers, efficient.
	* Cons: Requires creating a new element.
4. **`x-prepend`**: Tests prepping content before appending it using the `prepend()` method.
	* Pros: Can be more efficient than other methods for large amounts of content.
	* Cons: May have higher overhead due to prepending.
5. **`x-append`**: Tests appending content using a custom function, `createElement()`, and passing it to the WC.
	* Pros: Allows for fine-grained control over element creation.
	* Cons: Requires more complex implementation.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses `customElements.define()` to create the WCs. This library is part of the Web Components specification, which provides a way to define custom HTML elements.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that require specific handling.

**Other Alternatives**

To compare the performance of these methods, alternative approaches could be explored, such as:

* Using native WebSockets for real-time communication
* Leveraging WebGL for accelerated rendering
* Utilizing WebAssembly for performance-critical components

However, these alternatives are not part of the current benchmark and would require significant changes to the test suite.

Keep in mind that this is just a general overview, and specific results may vary depending on the browser, hardware, and other factors.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
x-innerHTML	419903.2 Ops/sec
x-appendraw	422957.7 Ops/sec
x-appenchilddraw	384945.8 Ops/sec
x-prepend	356556.5 Ops/sec
x-append	321177.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Web Component append content 4 ways (version: 3)

Append content to a Web Component with innerHTML, append, appendChild

Comparing performance of: x-innerHTML vs x-appendraw vs x-appenchilddraw vs x-prepend vs x-append

Created: 2 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

x-innerHTML

x-appendraw

x-appenchilddraw

x-prepend

x-append

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):