Benchmark: asdasd as ff d test

Script Preparation code:

var a = document.createElement('a');

Tests:

test 1
a.appendChild(document.createElement('li'));
test 2
a.innerHTML= '<li></li>';

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test 1
test 2

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 Definition JSON and individual test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition represents a single JavaScript microbenchmark. Here's what's being tested:

* The script preparation code creates an empty `<a>` element using `document.createElement('a')`. This sets up the initial state for the benchmark.
* The HTML preparation code is null, which means no additional HTML elements are created or modified before running the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

The test cases represent two separate benchmarks:

1. **Test 1**: "a.appendChild(document.createElement('li'));"

* What's being tested: The time it takes to append a new `<li>` element to an existing `<a>` element.
   * Options compared:
     + `appendChild`: appending a new element using the `appendChild` method.
     + (Not specified) - no additional options are being compared.

2. **Test 2**: "a.innerHTML = '<li></li>';"

* What's being tested: The time it takes to set the innerHTML of an `<a>` element to a single `<li>` element.
   * Options compared:
     + `innerHTML`: setting the innerHTML property using string interpolation.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Appending a new element (`appendChild`)**:
	+ Pros: Can be more efficient for large datasets, as it avoids the overhead of creating an entire HTML string.
	+ Cons: May not be suitable for small datasets or when working with complex HTML structures.
* **Setting innerHTML using string interpolation**:
	+ Pros: Easy to implement and works well for simple cases. Allows for dynamic content rendering.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than appending individual elements, especially for large datasets.

**Library Usage**

In the provided benchmark definition, there is no explicit library usage mentioned. However, it's worth noting that using libraries like jQuery or DOM manipulation libraries can significantly impact performance due to their overhead and complexity.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being used in these benchmarks. The code is straightforward and uses standard ECMAScript methods.

**Other Alternatives**

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

* **Using a template engine**: Instead of string interpolation, you could use a template engine like Handlebars to render dynamic content.
* **Modifying the DOM using a diffing library**: Libraries like diff.js can help optimize DOM updates by comparing the old and new DOM structures.

In conclusion, these benchmarks are testing the performance of appending new elements versus setting innerHTML using string interpolation. The choice between these approaches depends on your specific use case, dataset size, and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.67 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 70 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test 1	188193.4 Ops/sec
test 2	109119.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

asdasd as ff d test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test 1 vs test 2

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test 1

test 2

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):