Benchmark: Get html, innerHTML vs $.html

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.6.0.min.js"></script>

<script type="text/template" id="template">
	Hello <%-obj.name%>
</script>

Tests:

Jquery html
$('#template').html()
vanilla innerHtml
document.getElementById('template').innerHtml

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Jquery html
vanilla 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 dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to retrieving inner HTML: using jQuery (`$.html()`) versus using vanilla JavaScript (`document.getElementById('template').innerHTML`). The goal is to measure which approach is faster, more efficient, or both.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON defines the benchmark:

* `Name`: A descriptive name for the benchmark ("Get html, innerHTML vs $.html").
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These sections are empty in this case. They typically contain code that needs to be executed before running the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Jquery HTML**: The first test case uses jQuery's `$.html()` method to retrieve the inner HTML of an element with the ID "template".
2. **Vanilla innerHTML**: The second test case uses vanilla JavaScript's `innerHTML` property to achieve the same result.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **jQuery's $.html()**:
	+ Pros: jQuery is a popular, well-maintained library that provides a convenient way to manipulate HTML content. It can also handle more complex scenarios like dynamic content.
	+ Cons: Requires an additional library dependency (jQuery), which may increase the overall size of the bundle and potentially impact performance.
* **Vanilla JavaScript's `innerHTML`**:
	+ Pros: Faster and more lightweight than using a library, as it only requires access to the DOM API. This can result in smaller bundle sizes and faster execution times.
	+ Cons: Requires manual handling of edge cases like null or undefined values, which can increase development complexity.

**Library Use (jQuery)**

In this case, jQuery is used for its `$.html()` method, which replaces the inner HTML content of an element. This approach leverages jQuery's templating capabilities to dynamically populate the HTML content.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There doesn't seem to be any specific JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two approaches to retrieving inner HTML.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are a few:

* **DOMParser**: You can use `new DOMParser().parseFromString()` to parse an HTML string and retrieve the inner HTML content.
* **String manipulation**: Another approach would be to manually split the HTML content into individual elements and concatenate them to form the final result. However, this is likely to be slower than using jQuery or vanilla JavaScript.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs in terms of performance, development complexity, and library dependencies.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:87.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/87.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 87 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Jquery html	2846702.5 Ops/sec
vanilla innerHtml	5223306.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Get html, innerHTML vs $.html (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Jquery html vs vanilla innerHtml

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Jquery html

vanilla 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):