Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
js vs jquery
(version: 0)
test
Comparing performance of:
jquery vs js
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<div id='test'><input type='text' value='2'/></div> <script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
Script Preparation code:
var a = null;
Tests:
jquery
a = $('#test').html();
js
a = document.getElementById('test').innerHTML;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
jquery
js
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered. **Benchmark Overview** The test compares two approaches: using jQuery (a JavaScript library) to retrieve the HTML content of an element, versus using native JavaScript to achieve the same result. The benchmark measures which approach is faster in terms of execution frequency per second. **Script Preparation Code** The script preparation code initializes a variable `a` with no value, which serves as a dummy variable for testing purposes. **Html Preparation Code** The HTML preparation code includes a simple form element with an input field and its `value` attribute set to `'2'`. This setup is used by the benchmark to retrieve the inner HTML of the input element using both jQuery and native JavaScript. **Library: jQuery** jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation, event handling, and other tasks. In this test, jQuery is used to retrieve the inner HTML of an element using `$('#test').html()`. The `#` symbol in jQuery refers to an ID selector. Pros: * Easier to use for complex DOM operations * Simplifies code by providing a more convenient API Cons: * Adds overhead due to the library's size and complexity * May introduce dependencies that can slow down page loads **Native JavaScript Approach** The native JavaScript approach uses `document.getElementById('test').innerHTML` to retrieve the inner HTML of the element. This method is built into the browser's DOM API. Pros: * Lighter weight compared to jQuery * Eliminates dependency on a third-party library * More control over the code Cons: * Requires more code to achieve the same result * May be less readable for complex operations **Test Case Analysis** The benchmark includes two test cases: 1. "jquery": Uses `$('#test').html()` to retrieve the inner HTML of the element. 2. "js": Uses `document.getElementById('test').innerHTML` to retrieve the inner HTML of the element. Both approaches are valid, but they differ in complexity and dependency on third-party libraries. **Other Alternatives** For retrieving inner HTML, other alternatives exist: 1. `element.outerHTML`: This method returns a new string containing the original element's content, including tags. It's faster than `innerHTML` but may require additional processing. 2. `element.textContent`: This property returns the text content of an element without including any whitespace or tags. It's more efficient than `innerHTML` for text-only content. In summary, the benchmark tests two approaches to retrieving inner HTML: using jQuery and native JavaScript. The pros and cons of each approach are considered, along with alternative methods for achieving the same result.
Related benchmarks:
js vs jquery v2.2.4
Vanilla vs Jquery OPS/SEC 2
JQuery vs Vanilla testtest
jquery text vs js textContent
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?