Benchmark: JS: replaceWith vs replaceChild2

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="container"><p></p></div>

Script Preparation code:

var container = document.getElementById("container");

Tests:

replaceWith
var paragraph = document.createElement("p"); var existingp = container.querySelector("p"); existingp.replaceWith(paragraph);
replaceChild
var paragraph = document.createElement("p"); var existingp = container.querySelector("p"); container.replaceChild(paragraph, existingp);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replaceWith
replaceChild

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined in JSON format, which represents two individual microbenchmarks: `replaceWith` and `replaceChild`. The script preparation code and HTML preparation code are also provided.

* **Script Preparation Code**: This line of code retrieves a container element from the DOM using `document.getElementById("container")`.
* **Html Preparation Code**: This block of HTML creates a simple page with a single `<div>` element containing another `<p>` element. The container is assigned to the variable `container`.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **replaceWith**
This test case creates a new paragraph element using `document.createElement("p")` and then uses the `replaceWith()` method to replace the existing paragraph element (`existingp`) with the newly created one.
2. **replaceChild**
Similar to the first test case, but instead of using `replaceWith()`, it uses the `replaceChild()` method to swap the existing paragraph element (`existingp`) with the new one.

**Comparison**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two methods for replacing an existing DOM element: `replaceWith()` and `replaceChild()`.

* **Pros of replaceWith():**
	+ Simpler syntax
	+ May be more efficient since it only needs to create a new element and swap it with the old one, without having to update any attributes or styles.
* **Cons of replaceWith():**
	+ May not be supported by older browsers or versions that don't have a `replaceWith()` method.
* **Pros of replaceChild():**
	+ More efficient since it only needs to update the child node property of the container element, without creating a new element.
	+ Widely supported across modern browsers and versions.
* **Cons of replaceChild():**
	+ Requires more complex syntax
	+ May not be as readable or maintainable as `replaceWith()`.

**Library Usage**

Neither of these test cases uses any external libraries. The DOM API is used directly to interact with the document.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

Neither of these test cases utilizes any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, Promises, or modern ES6+ syntax.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:129.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/129.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 129 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replaceWith	336827.3 Ops/sec
replaceChild	372624.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JS: replaceWith vs replaceChild2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: replaceWith vs replaceChild

Created: one month ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

replaceWith

replaceChild

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):