Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Set 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('hello world');
native getElementById
document.getElementById('button').textContent = 'hello world';
native querySelector
document.querySelector('#button').textContent = 'hello world';
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):
**Benchmark Explanation** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test that compares the performance of two approaches: using jQuery to set text from an element, and using native JavaScript methods (`getElementById` and `querySelector`) to achieve the same result. **Options Compared** The test case compares three options: 1. **jQuery**: Uses the jQuery library to select the element and set its text content. 2. **native getElementById**: Uses the native JavaScript method `getElementById` to get a reference to the element and then sets its text content using the `textContent` property. 3. **native querySelector**: Uses the native JavaScript method `querySelector` to get a reference to the element and then sets its text content using the `textContent` property. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **jQuery**: * Pros: jQuery provides a simpler and more concise way to select elements and manipulate their attributes. * Cons: Requires including an additional library, which can add overhead and potential security risks if not properly sanitized. 2. **native getElementById**: * Pros: Native method, so no additional library is required. * Cons: Can be less efficient than jQuery's selector engine, especially for complex selections. 3. **native querySelector**: * Pros: Similar performance to `getElementById` and a more modern way of selecting elements. * Cons: May have compatibility issues with older browsers that don't support `querySelector`. **Library Description** The test case uses the jQuery library, which is a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation. It provides a simple and intuitive API for selecting elements, manipulating their attributes, and adding event listeners. **Special JS Features or Syntax** None mentioned in this benchmark. **Other Alternatives** For native methods like `getElementById` and `querySelector`, other alternatives might include: * **native querySelectorAll**: Returns all elements that match the specified selector. * **native getElementsByTagName**: Returns all elements with the specified tag name. * **using CSS selectors**: Could be used instead of `querySelector` or `querySelectorAll`, but might have compatibility issues with older browsers. **Benchmark Preparation Code** The provided HTML preparation code includes a link to include jQuery in the test environment. The `Script Preparation Code` field is empty, suggesting that no additional scripts are required for this benchmark. I hope this explanation helps!
Related benchmarks:
Vanilla-vs-Jquery-lilith
jQuery vs Vanilla Text Node
jQuery dom
Get text from element (jquery vs native)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?