Benchmark: jquery text vs js innerHtml

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:

jquery text
$('#foo').text(d)
js innerHtml
document.getElementById('foo').innerHTML =d;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jquery text
js innerHtml

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for setting text content in an HTML element: using jQuery's `text()` method versus JavaScript's `innerHTML` property.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is a simple string variable `d` containing the HTML element with text content `<p>test</p>`. This will be used as the input data for the benchmark.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes an external jQuery library (version 3.1.1) and a basic HTML structure (`<div id="foo">Hello World</div>`). The `id` attribute of this div element matches the one used in the script preparation code, allowing for direct access to the element.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **"jquery text"**: This test case uses jQuery's `text()` method to set the text content of the `#foo` element.
2. **"js innerHtml"**: This test case uses JavaScript's `innerHTML` property to set the text content of the `#foo` element.

**Comparison**

The comparison is between the two approaches:

* **Pros and Cons:**
	+ jQuery's `text()` method:
		- Pros: Easy to use, fast, and efficient.
		- Cons: May not work with all HTML elements or formats, may have compatibility issues.
	+ JavaScript's `innerHTML` property:
		- Pros: Highly flexible, supports most HTML elements and formats.
		- Cons: Can be slower than `text()`, has potential security risks if used with user input.

**Library Usage**

The test case uses jQuery (version 3.1.1) for the `text()` method. The purpose of this library is to simplify DOM manipulation and provide a convenient way to interact with web pages.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark definition.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to compare these approaches using alternative methods, here are some options:

* Using Node.js's `DOMParser` or `innerHTML` property instead of jQuery.
* Implementing a custom text extraction function using regular expressions or other techniques.
* Comparing the execution times of different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey).

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity and potential performance differences.

**Test Users Special Considerations**

When testing these approaches, consider the following:

* **User input security**: Be cautious when using `innerHTML` with user-input data to prevent XSS attacks.
* **Browser support**: Verify that both approaches work across different browsers and versions.
* **Performance optimization**: Analyze the execution times of each approach in various scenarios (e.g., large datasets, complex HTML structures).

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/100.0.4896.127 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 100 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jquery text	748189.2 Ops/sec
js innerHtml	457210.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jquery text vs js innerHtml (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jquery text vs js innerHtml

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jquery text

js innerHtml

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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