Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
jQuery vs Vanilla JS SetText Speed Test testraw
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Pure JS .innerText vs Pure JS .innerHTML
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script> <span id="foo">Hello World</span>
Tests:
Pure JS .innerText
document.getElementsByTagName("span");
Pure JS .innerHTML
$('span');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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):
Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using jQuery to set the text content of an HTML element versus using vanilla JavaScript (no libraries). The test case uses a simple scenario where we have an HTML span element with the initial text "Hello World". **Options Compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **Pure JS SetText Speed Test**: This option uses only vanilla JavaScript to set the text content of the span element. It's likely that this approach is intended to test how fast a JavaScript engine can execute simple string manipulation operations. 2. **Pure JS .innerHTML Speed Test**: This option also uses only vanilla JavaScript, but it accesses the innerHTML property of the span element instead of setting its text content directly. **Pros and Cons** Both approaches have their pros and cons: * **Pure JS SetText Speed Test**: + Pros: More control over the execution order and timing of the code. + Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of accessing DOM properties, such as `innerText` or `innerHTML`. * **Pure JS .innerHTML Speed Test**: + Pros: May be faster due to the optimized internal implementation of the `innerHTML` property in modern JavaScript engines. + Cons: Less control over execution order and timing. It's worth noting that the performance difference between these two approaches may be negligible, depending on the specific use case and JavaScript engine. **Library Usage** In this benchmark, jQuery is used as a library to provide an alternative implementation of the same test cases. The exact functionality of jQuery in this context isn't specified, but it's likely being used to demonstrate how its own implementation of `innerHTML` compares to the vanilla JavaScript approach. **Special JS Features/Syntax (None)** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark that would require specific handling or optimization. The test cases focus on basic string manipulation operations and DOM property access. **Other Alternatives** If MeasureThat.net were to provide alternative benchmarks, they might include: * Using other libraries like React or Angular instead of jQuery. * Comparing the performance of different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8 vs SpiderMonkey). * Introducing additional complexity, such as using promises or async/await, to simulate real-world scenarios. * Testing other types of DOM manipulations, such as adding/removing elements or modifying styles. Keep in mind that MeasureThat.net is primarily focused on comparing the performance of JavaScript engines and libraries, rather than providing an exhaustive set of benchmarks for every possible use case.
Related benchmarks:
jQuery 2.2.0 vs Vanilla JS SetText Speed Test
jQuery vs Vanilla JS SetText Speed Test test
jQuery vs Vanilla JS SetText Speed Test (not slim)
JQuery: text vs html
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?