Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Get text from element (jquery vs native)
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
jQuery vs native getElementById vs native querySelector
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/jquery@3.6.1/dist/jquery.min.js" integrity="sha256-o88AwQnZB+VDvE9tvIXrMQaPlFFSUTR+nldQm1LuPXQ=" crossorigin="anonymous"></script> <main> <div id="button">Order</div> </main>
Tests:
jQuery
$('#button').text();
native getElementById
document.getElementById('button').textContent;
native querySelector
document.querySelector('#button').textContent;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
jQuery
native getElementById
native querySelector
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested. **Benchmark Definition:** The benchmark compares three approaches to retrieve text from an HTML element: 1. **jQuery**: Uses the jQuery library to select the element and then calls its `text()` method to get the text content. 2. **Native getElementById**: Uses the native DOM API to select the element by its ID using `document.getElementById()` and then accesses its `textContent` property. 3. **Native querySelector**: Uses the native DOM API to select the element using `document.querySelector()` and then accesses its `textContent` property. **Options compared:** The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches on a desktop Windows platform with Chrome 105 browser. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **jQuery**: * Pros: jQuery is a well-known library that provides a simple and convenient way to manipulate HTML documents. It also supports various versions and browsers. * Cons: jQuery adds extra overhead due to its own JavaScript execution context, which can slow down performance-critical code paths. 2. **Native getElementById**: * Pros: This approach is lightweight and doesn't add any additional library or framework overhead. It's a native API that's widely supported across browsers. * Cons: This approach requires more DOM manipulation to access the element's text content, which can be less efficient than jQuery's `text()` method. 3. **Native querySelector**: * Pros: This approach is similar to `getElementById`, but it allows for more flexibility and expressiveness in selecting elements using CSS selectors. * Cons: Like `getElementById`, this approach requires additional DOM manipulation, which can be less efficient than jQuery's `text()` method. **Library used:** The benchmark uses the jQuery library version 3.6.1, which is a relatively old version but still widely supported. **Special JavaScript feature or syntax:** None of the benchmark test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax. They only rely on standard DOM APIs and jQuery's `text()` method for simplicity. **Other alternatives:** If you were to extend this benchmark, you could also consider testing other approaches, such as: * Using a CSS selector library like Sizzle or CSS Selectors to select elements. * Implementing custom parsing logic for the HTML element text content. * Using a different browser or platform to test the performance of these approaches. Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs and requirements, so it's essential to consider the specific use case and performance characteristics when choosing the best method for your application.
Related benchmarks:
Vanilla-vs-Jquery-lilith
jQuery vs Vanilla Text Node
jQuery dom
Set text from element (jquery vs native)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?