Benchmark: jquery - empty vs html

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="foo">foo bar foo bar foo bar foo bar</div>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.4.1/jquery.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var foo = $("#foo");

Tests:

empty
foo.empty();
html
foo.html("");
innerHtml
foo[0].innerHTML = "";

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
empty
html
innerHtml

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
empty	11190516.0 Ops/sec
html	5346480.5 Ops/sec
innerHtml	46680664.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The test case uses jQuery, a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. The benchmark compares three different approaches:

1. `foo.empty()`: This method clears all child nodes of an element without removing the element itself.
2. `foo.html("")`: This method sets the HTML content of an element to an empty string, effectively clearing it.
3. `foo[0].innerHTML = ""`: This approach directly modifies the innerHTML property of the first child node of the element.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`foo.empty()`**: Pros:
	+ Efficient, as it only removes child nodes without affecting the element's structure.
	+ Can be faster for complex elements with many child nodes.
Cons:
	+ May not work correctly in some situations (e.g., when using jQuery's `html()` method on an element that already has a specific HTML content).
* **`foo.html("")`**: Pros:
	+ Simple and straightforward implementation.
	+ Works well with most elements, including those without child nodes.
Cons:
	+ May be slower than `foo.empty()`, as it requires setting the HTML content to an empty string.
	+ Can lead to unexpected behavior if used incorrectly (e.g., modifying existing HTML content).
* **`foo[0].innerHTML = ""`**: Pros:
	+ Fast and efficient, as it directly modifies the innerHTML property of a single node.
Cons:
	+ Requires careful handling of the DOM structure, especially when dealing with complex elements or nodes.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a lightweight JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation and event handling. It provides an easy-to-use API for selecting elements, manipulating their content, and attaching events to them. In this benchmark, jQuery's `empty()` method is used to compare different approaches for clearing the content of an element.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing different methods for clearing the content of an element using a popular library like jQuery.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement these benchmarks without using jQuery, you could consider alternative approaches:

1. Using native DOM APIs (e.g., `element.remove()` or `element.innerHTML = ""`).
2. Implementing custom functions for clearing element content.
3. Utilizing other JavaScript libraries that provide similar functionality (e.g., vanilla JavaScript's `Element.prototype.innerHTML` property).

Keep in mind that each approach has its pros and cons, and the choice of implementation will depend on your specific use case and performance requirements.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its test cases!

Related benchmarks:

jquery - empty vs html (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: empty vs html vs innerHtml

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

empty

html

innerHtml

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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