Benchmark: innerhtml vs removechild vs remove 2

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var node = document.getElementById('container');

function removeChild(node){node.parentNode.removeChild(node)}
function remove(node){node.remove()}

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) removeChild(node.firstChild)
remove
var node = document.getElementById('container'); while(node.firstChild) remove(node.firstChild)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
innerHTML
removeChild
remove

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different approaches for removing children from an HTML element in JavaScript: `innerHTML`, `removeChild`, and `remove`. The benchmark uses a simple script that creates 1000 elements, appends them to an HTML container, and then removes each one using the specified approach.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of three options:

1. **innerHTML**: Using the `innerHTML` property to clear the element's content.
2. **removeChild**: Using the `removeChild()` method to remove the first child node from the element.
3. **remove**: Using the `remove()` method to remove the current element.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **innerHTML**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and efficient for most cases.
	* Cons: Can be slow for large numbers of children, as it requires creating a new DOM tree and updating the element's content.
2. **removeChild**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, as it only removes the specified child node without affecting the rest of the DOM tree.
	* Cons: Requires iterating over all child nodes to find the one to remove, which can be slow for large numbers of children.
3. **remove**:
	* Pros: Similar to `removeChild`, but uses a different method signature and may have slightly better performance in some cases.
	* Cons: Same as `removeChild`: requires iterating over all child nodes to find the one to remove.

**Library Used**

None, this benchmark is a simple JavaScript-only test case.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

No special features or syntax are used in this benchmark. The test only relies on standard JavaScript and DOM methods.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark results may vary depending on factors such as:

* Browser version and platform
* System resources (e.g., CPU, memory)
* HTML element size and complexity

To get a more comprehensive understanding of the performance differences between these approaches, it's recommended to run this benchmark in multiple browsers and environments.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you want to explore other options for removing children from an HTML element, consider the following alternatives:

1. **querySelectorAll**: Using `querySelectorAll()` to select all child elements and then using `forEach()` or a similar method to remove them.
2. **DOMTraversal**: Implementing a custom DOM traversal algorithm to find and remove child nodes more efficiently than iterating over all nodes.
3. **Web Workers**: Utilizing Web Workers to offload the removal task to a separate thread, potentially improving performance in CPU-bound environments.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs in terms of complexity, browser support, and overall performance.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/85.0.4183.102 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 85 on Mac OS X 10.15.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
innerHTML	1810788.6 Ops/sec
removeChild	4853849.0 Ops/sec
remove	4841764.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

innerhtml vs removechild vs remove 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: innerHTML vs removeChild vs remove

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

innerHTML

removeChild

remove

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):