Benchmark: innerText vs textContent + trim (HTML)

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="my-div">Hello<div>

Script Preparation code:

var a = document.getElementById("my-div");

Tests:

textContent
a.textContent.trim();
innerText
a.innerText;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
textContent
innerText

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.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: accessing the `innerText` property directly vs using `textContent` with subsequent trimming using the `trim()` method.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests which approach is faster for retrieving the text content from an HTML element's innerHTML. Specifically, it measures the execution time of:

1. Directly accessing the `innerText` property: `a.innerText;`
2. Accessing the `textContent` property and then trimming the result using the `trim()` method: `a.textContent.trim();`

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Direct access to `innerText`**: This approach accesses the element's innerHTML directly, without any additional processing.
2. **Using `textContent` with `trim()``` : This approach first retrieves the element's text content using `textContent`, and then trims the result using the `trim()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Direct access to `innerText`**:
	* Pros: Simple, direct access to the innerHTML.
	* Cons: May not account for any trimming or formatting applied to the text content.
2. **Using `textContent` with `trim()``` : 
	* Pros: Accounts for any trimming or formatting applied to the text content.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to string processing.

**Library and syntax used**

The benchmark uses the following library:

None explicitly stated, but it appears to be using JavaScript's built-in DOM API to interact with the HTML element.

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to modify this benchmark to compare other approaches, here are some options:

1. **Using `innerHTML` instead of `innerText`**: This approach would access the element's innerHTML directly, without any trimming.
2. **Using a different trimming method**: Instead of using the built-in `trim()` method, you could use a custom trimming function or a regular expression to trim the text content.
3. **Adding additional processing steps**: You could add additional processing steps, such as encoding or decoding, to compare their performance.

Keep in mind that modifying this benchmark would require careful consideration of any potential impact on its accuracy and reliability.

Related benchmarks:

innerText vs textContent + trim (HTML) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: textContent vs innerText

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

textContent

innerText

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):