<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="foo">Hello World</div>
document.getElementById('test-table');
$('#test-table');
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Pure JS .innerText | |
Pure JS .innerHTML |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Pure JS .innerText | 4871013.5 Ops/sec |
Pure JS .innerHTML | 2511521.0 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the benchmark and its various components.
What is tested on the provided JSON?
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test, specifically comparing the performance of using jQuery ($
) with vanilla JavaScript (without any libraries) to set the text content of an HTML element. There are two individual test cases:
Options compared:
The benchmark compares two options:
$
): A popular JavaScript library for simplifying HTML manipulation, event handling, and Ajax interactions.Pros and Cons of each approach:
$
):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:
document.querySelector
)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.