Benchmark: jquery text vs html

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="foo">Hello World</div>

Script Preparation code:

var d = "<p>test</p>"

Tests:

insert per text
$('#foo').text(d);
insert per html
$('#foo').html(d);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
insert per text
insert per html

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:139.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/139.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 139 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
insert per text	364624.6 Ops/sec
insert per html	274366.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros/cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark defines two test cases:

1. `$("#foo").text(d);`: This line of code inserts the text content (`d`) into an HTML element with the id `foo`.
2. `$("#foo").html(d);`: This line of code inserts the full HTML content (including markup) into an HTML element with the id `foo`.

**Script and Html Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates a string variable `d` containing the text content: `"<p>test</p>"`. The html preparation code includes a reference to the jQuery library and defines a simple HTML structure (`<div id="foo">Hello World</div>`).

**Options Compared**

Two approaches are compared:

1. **Text Insertion (`.text(d)`)**: This approach inserts only the text content into the element.
2. **HTML Insertion (`.html(d)`)**: This approach inserts the full HTML content, including markup, into the element.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Text Insertion (`$.text(d)`):**
	+ Pros:
		- Faster execution time since less DOM manipulation is required.
		- May be more efficient in terms of memory usage (less unnecessary HTML).
	+ Cons:
		- Does not include the original element's markup, which might affect layout or styling.
* **HTML Insertion (`$.html(d)`):**
	+ Pros:
		- Includes the original element's markup, preserving its layout and styling.
	+ Cons:
		- Slower execution time since more DOM manipulation is required.
		- May consume more memory due to additional HTML.

**Library: jQuery**

The benchmark uses jQuery (version 3.1.1), a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. The `$.text()` and `$.html()` methods are used to insert text and HTML content into the element, respectively.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no explicit mention of any special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that using jQuery can provide additional functionality beyond simple DOM manipulation, such as event handling and animation.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to testing the performance of text and HTML insertion methods, consider the following options:

1. **Native JavaScript (DOM manipulation)**: Implementing the same logic without using a library like jQuery.
2. **V8 Benchmark**: Running the benchmark using V8's built-in benchmarking tools, which can provide more detailed insights into the execution time and memory usage of different approaches.
3. **Other libraries or frameworks**: Using alternative libraries or frameworks that provide similar functionality to jQuery, such as React or Angular.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require additional setup, configuration, or modifications to your existing codebase.

Related benchmarks:

jquery text vs html (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: insert per text vs insert per html

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

insert per text

insert per html

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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