JavaScript: Is it better to use innerHTML or (lots of) createElement calls to add a complex div structure?

Question

I'm looking at a problem that needs a complex block of divs to be created once for each element in a set of ~100 elements.

Each individual element is identical except for the content, and they look (in HTML) something like this:

<div class="class0 class1 class3">
<div class="spacer"></div>
<div id="content">content</div>
<div class="spacer"></div>
<div id="content2">content2</div>
<div class="class4">content3</div>
<div class="spacer"></div>
<div id="footer">content3</div>
</div>

I could either:

1) Create all the elements as innerHTML with string concatenation to add the content.

2) Use createElement, setAttribute and appendChild to create and add each div.

Option 1 gets a slightly smaller file to download, but option 2 seems to be slightly faster to render.

Other than performance is there a good reason to go via one route or the other? Any cross-browser problems / performance gremlins I should test for?

...or should I try the template and clone approach?

Many thanks.

See also [Is it possible to append to innerHTML without destroying descendants' event listeners?](http://stackoverflow.com/q/595808/1048572) — Bergi, Oct 04 '16 at 19:22

score 17 · Answer 1 · edited Jan 20 '15 at 12:49

Depends on what's "better" for you.

Performance

From a performance point of view, createElement+appendChild wins by a LOT. Take a look at this jsPerf I created when I compare both and the results hit in the face.

innerHTML: ~120 ops/sec
createElement+appendChild: ~145000 ops/sec

(on my Mac with Chrome 21)

Also, innerHTML triggers page reflow.

On Ubuntu with Chrome 39 tests get similar results

innerHTML: 120000 ops/sec
createElement: 124000 ops/sec

probably some optimisation take place. On Ubuntu with QtWebkit based browser Arora (wkhtml also QtWebkit) results are

innerHTML: 71000 ops/sec
createElement: 282000 ops/sec

it seems createElement faster in average

Mantainability

From a mantainability point of view, I believe string templates help you a lot. I use either Handlebars (which I love) or Tim (for project which need smallest footprints). When you "compile" (prepare) your template and it's ready for appending it to the DOM, you use innerHTML to append the template string to the DOM. On trick I do to avoid reflow is createElement for a wrapper and in that wrapper element, put the template with innerHTML. I'm still looking for a good way to avoid innerHTML at all.

Compatibility

You don't have to worry here, both methods are fully supported by a broad range of browsers (unlike altCognito says). You can check compatibility charts for createElement and appendChild.

Your jsPerf link is broken. – Blazemonger Aug 29 '14 at 13:09 — Blazemonger, Aug 29 '14 at 13:09

score 15 · Answer 2 · edited May 23 '17 at 12:02

15

Neither. Use a library like jQuery, Prototype, Dojo or mooTools because both of these methods are fraught with trouble:

The writers of the major javascript libraries have spent a lot of time and have entire bug tracking systems to make sure that when you call their DOM modifying tools they actually work.

If you're writing a library to compete with the above tools (and good luck to you if you are), then I'd choose the method based on performance, and innerHTML has always won out in the past, and since innerHTML is a native method, it's a safe bet it will remain the fastest.

edited May 23 '17 at 12:02

Community

1
1

answered Apr 10 '09 at 11:51

cgp

41,026
12
101
131

5

Since all those libraries you cite are largely obsolete by 2018, their competitors did have "good luck". – user949300 Apr 28 '18 at 08:59
1

@user949300 what do you recommend in 2020 ? – vikramvi Aug 14 '20 at 06:37

score 8 · Answer 3 · answered Apr 10 '09 at 12:03

altCognito makes a good point - using a library is the way to go. But if was doing it by hand, I would use option #2 - create elements with DOM methods. They are a bit ugly, but you can make an element factory function that hides the ugliness. Concatenating strings of HTML is ugly also, but more likely to have security problems, especially with XSS.

I would definitely not append the new nodes individually, though. I would use a DOM DocumentFragment. Appending nodes to a documentFragment is much faster than inserting them into the live page. When you're done building your fragment it just gets inserted all at once.

John Resig explains it much better than I could, but basically you just say:

var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
frag.appendChild(myFirstNewElement);
frag.appendChild(mySecondNewElement);
...etc.
document.getElementById('insert_here').appendChild(frag);

score 4 · Answer 4 · answered Apr 10 '09 at 11:02

4

Personally, I use innerHTML because it's what I'm used to and for something like this, the W3C methods add a lot of clutter to the code.

Just a possible way to cut down on the number of div's however, are there any reasons you are using spacer elements instead of just editing the margins on the content divs?

answered Apr 10 '09 at 11:02

Macha

14,366
14
57
69

Questions to OP should be in comments on the original question, not part of your answer. – Blazemonger Aug 29 '14 at 13:08

score 2 · Answer 5 · answered May 24 '14 at 03:36

2

Neither. Use cloneNode.

var div = document.createElement('div');
var millionDivs = [div];
while (millionDivs.length < 1e6) millionDivs.push(div.cloneNode())

answered May 24 '14 at 03:36

bjb568

11,089
11
50
71

1

You forgot to explain why. – Blazemonger Aug 29 '14 at 13:07
1

@Blazemonger Why? Browser implementations just tend to be faster. – bjb568 Aug 29 '14 at 13:31

score 2 · Answer 6 · answered Apr 10 '09 at 11:11

I don't think there's much to choose between them. In the olden days (IE6, FF1.5), innerHTML was faster (benchmark), but now there doesn't seem to be a noticeable difference in most cases.

According to the mozilla dev. docs there are a few situations where innerHTML behaviour varies between browsers (notably inside tables), so createElement will give you more consistency - but innerHTML is usually less to type.

score 2 · Answer 7 · edited May 23 '17 at 11:46

Since you mentioned template and clone, you may be interested in this question:

Deep cloning vs setting of innerHTML: what’s faster?

Another option is to use a DOM wrapper, such as DOMBuilder:

DOMBuilder.apply(window);
DIV({"class": "class0 class1 class3"},
  DIV({"class": "spacer"}),
  DIV({id: "content"}, "content"),
  DIV({"class": "spacer"}),
  DIV({id: "content2"}, "content2"),
  DIV({"class": "class4"}, "content3"),
  DIV({"class": "spacer"}),
  DIV({id: "footer"}, "content3")
);

Personally, if each item is going to need the exact same structure created I would go with the cloning approach. If there's any logic involved in creating the structure into which the content will go, I'd rather maintain something like the above than fiddling about with strings. If that approach turned out to be too slow, I'd fall back to innerHTML.

score 0 · Answer 8 · answered Apr 10 '09 at 11:12

As I know, the fastest way is to evade DOM editing as long as it is possible. That mean, it is better to create a big string and then put it into innerHTML. But there is a remark for this: don't make too many operation on big strings, it is faster to use array of strings and then join them all.

score 0 · Answer 9 · edited Apr 10 '09 at 14:08

0

For a complex problem like this, I usually use the innerHTML methods because they are a)easier to read and modify code-wise b)more convenient to use in loops. As the top post says, they unfortunately fail in IE(6,7,8) on <table>, <thead>,<tbody>,<tr>,<tfoot>, <select>, <pre> elements.

edited Apr 10 '09 at 14:08

scunliffe

62,582
25
126
161

answered Apr 10 '09 at 12:10

mike nvck

454
2
9

bobince · Answer 10 · 2012-12-29T16:38:35.880

1) Create all the elements as innerHTML with string concatenation to add the content.

2) Use createElement, setAttribute and appendChild to create and add each div.

3) compromise. Create all the elements in one go as innerHTML (which avoids a lot of childnode list manipulation slowness), then write the content that changes on each item using data/attribute access (avoiding all that nasty mucking around with having to HTML-escape content). eg. something like:

var html= (
    '<div class="item">'+
        '<div class="title">x</div>'+
        '<div class="description">x</div>'+
    '</div>'
);
var items= [
    {'id': 1, 'title': 'Potato', 'description': 'A potato'},
    {'id': 2, 'title': 'Kartoffel', 'description': 'German potato'},
    // ... 100 other items ...
];

function multiplyString(s, n) {
    return new Array(n+1).join(s);
}

var parent= document.getElementById('itemcontainer');
parent.innerHTML= multiplyString(html, items.length);
for (var i= 0; i<items.length; i++) {
    var item= items[i];
    var node= parent.childNodes[i];

    node.id= 'item'+item.id;
    node.childNodes[0].firstChild.data= item.title;
    node.childNodes[1].firstChild.data= item.description;
}

Can also be combined with Neall's tip about DocumentFragments.

JavaScript: Is it better to use innerHTML or (lots of) createElement calls to add a complex div structure?

10 Answers10

Performance

Mantainability

Compatibility

Linked

Related