Benchmark: innerhtml vs removechild vs childRemove

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var node = document.getElementById('container');

for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) node.appendChild(document.createElement('div'));

Tests:

innerHTML
var node = document.getElementById('container'); node.innerHTML = '';
removeChild
var node = document.getElementById('container'); while(node.firstChild) node.removeChild(node.firstChild)
firstChild.remove
var node = document.getElementById('container'); while(node.firstChild) node.firstChild.remove()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
innerHTML
removeChild
firstChild.remove

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark, "innerhtml vs removechild vs childRemove", measures the performance difference between three approaches to clear an HTML element:

1. `innerHTML`: setting the inner HTML of the element to an empty string.
2. `removeChild`: removing all child elements from the node using a while loop.
3. `firstChild.remove`: removing the first child element of the node using the `remove` method.

**Options Compared**

The three options are compared in terms of their execution speed, measured by the number of executions per second on a Desktop device with Chrome 71 browser.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **innerHTML**:
	* Pros: Simple and efficient way to clear an element's content.
	* Cons: Can be slower for large amounts of data, as it involves parsing and manipulating the HTML.
2. **removeChild**:
	* Pros: More flexible and can handle complex cases, but may be slower due to the use of a while loop.
	* Cons: Can be slower than `innerHTML` for simple cases, as it involves iterating over child elements.
3. **firstChild.remove**:
	* Pros: Efficient way to remove the first child element, as it directly calls the `remove` method.
	* Cons: May not work correctly if there are no child elements or if the element has only one child.

**Library Used**

None of the options explicitly use a library. However, the benchmark assumes that the JavaScript engine used by Chrome 71 supports modern JavaScript features, such as template literals (e.g., `var node = document.getElementById('container');\nnode.innerHTML = '';`).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**

The benchmark uses template literals (`\n`) to separate lines of code in the script preparation code. This is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). While not specific to any particular library, it's worth noting that some older browsers or environments may not support this syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare these options using a different approach, you could consider:

* Using `textContent` instead of `innerHTML`.
* Comparing the performance of `innerHTML` with `appendChild` and then removing all children.
* Using a library like jQuery to clear an element's content (if applicable).

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative approaches may affect the results and the relevance of the benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/71.0.3578.98 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 71 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
innerHTML	879900.8 Ops/sec
removeChild	1321764.6 Ops/sec
firstChild.remove	958353.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

innerhtml vs removechild vs childRemove (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: innerHTML vs removeChild vs firstChild.remove

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

innerHTML

removeChild

firstChild.remove

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):