Benchmark: jQuery vs Vanilla JS SetText Speed Test test

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Pure JS .innerText
document.getElementById('test-table');
Pure JS .innerHTML
$('#test-table');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Pure JS .innerText
Pure JS .innerHTML

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.

Let's break down the benchmark and its various components.

**What is tested on the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test, specifically comparing the performance of using jQuery (`$`) with vanilla JavaScript (without any libraries) to set the text content of an HTML element. There are two individual test cases:

1. "Pure JS .innerText": Tests setting the innerText property directly on the DOM element.
2. "Pure JS .innerHTML": Tests setting the innerHTML property directly on the DOM element.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares two options:

* **jQuery (`$`)**: A popular JavaScript library for simplifying HTML manipulation, event handling, and Ajax interactions.
* **Vanilla JavaScript**: The standard JavaScript syntax without any libraries or frameworks.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **jQuery (`$`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simplifies DOM manipulation and event handling.
		+ Provides a consistent way to select elements.
		+ Can be more convenient for developers already familiar with jQuery.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds an external library, which may introduce performance overhead.
		+ Can slow down the application due to the need to load the library.
2. **Vanilla JavaScript**:
	* Pros:
		+ No external library is required, resulting in potentially better performance.
		+ Can be more efficient for large-scale applications or projects where the library is not necessary.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more code and may be less convenient for developers already familiar with jQuery.

**Library usage (jQuery):**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used to simplify the DOM manipulation. The `$('#test-table')` selector is used to select the element, and then the `.text()` method is called on it to set its text content. This allows developers to write less code and focus on other aspects of their application.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

None are explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, some JavaScript features like ES6 modules (import/export) or async/await may be used behind the scenes when running the benchmark scripts.

**Other alternatives:**

Other libraries or approaches for DOM manipulation and text setting could include:

* Lodash (a utility library with DOM-related functions)
* Vanilla CSS selectors (e.g., `document.querySelector`)
* React or Angular libraries, which provide their own way of manipulating DOM elements
* Other lightweight JavaScript libraries like Pixi.js or PlayCanvas

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

In this benchmark, the comparison is focused solely between jQuery and vanilla JavaScript, highlighting the trade-offs between using a library for convenience vs. performance.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery vs Vanilla JS SetText Speed Test test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Pure JS .innerText vs Pure JS .innerHTML

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Pure JS .innerText

Pure JS .innerHTML

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):