Benchmark: Test read speed - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:


<div id='test'>
  <span>This is a test</span>
  <span>with multiple stuff</span>
</div>

Script Preparation code:

var a = document.getElementById('test')

Tests:

innerText
var test1 = a.innerText;
textContent
var test2 = a.textContent;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
innerText
textContent

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the performance of two HTML-related methods: `innerText` and `textContent`. Specifically, it measures how fast these methods can retrieve the text content from an `<span>` element with the id "test" in an HTML document.

**Options compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. `innerText`
2. `textContent`

These two methods are part of the DOM (Document Object Model) API, which provides a way to interact with and manipulate HTML documents.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **`innerText`:**
	* Pros:
		+ Faster access speed (according to the benchmark results)
		+ May be more suitable for legacy or older browsers that don't support `textContent`
	* Cons:
		+ Not supported in all modern browsers, such as WebKit-based browsers like Safari
		+ Can be less readable and maintainable due to its simplicity
2. **`textContent`:**
	* Pros:
		+ Widely supported across most modern browsers (including Chrome, Firefox, and Edge)
		+ More readable and maintainable due to its explicit text content definition
	* Cons:
		+ May be slightly slower access speed (according to the benchmark results)

**Library usage:**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library being used. However, it's worth noting that both `innerText` and `textContent` methods are built-in DOM API methods, which means they don't require any external libraries or dependencies.

**Special JavaScript features/syntax:**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and uses basic DOM manipulation techniques.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were to implement a similar benchmark for other HTML-related methods, some alternative options could be:

* `innerHTML`: This method retrieves the entire HTML content of an element, including nested elements and attributes. It may be slower than `innerText` and `textContent` due to its complexity.
* `outerHTML`: Similar to `innerHTML`, but with a different syntax. It's also less readable and maintainable.

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these methods can vary depending on the specific use case, browser version, and HTML structure.

In conclusion, this benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two DOM API methods: `innerText` and `textContent`. The results indicate that `textContent` may be slightly slower than `innerText`, but it's widely supported across most modern browsers.

Related benchmarks:

Test read speed (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: innerText vs textContent

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

innerText

textContent

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):