Benchmark: Get text from element (jquery vs native)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/jquery@3.6.1/dist/jquery.min.js" integrity="sha256-o88AwQnZB+VDvE9tvIXrMQaPlFFSUTR+nldQm1LuPXQ=" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>

<main>
    <div id="button">Order</div>
</main>

Tests:

jQuery
$('#button').text();
native getElementById
document.getElementById('button').textContent;
native querySelector
document.querySelector('#button').textContent;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
native getElementById
native querySelector

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark compares three approaches to retrieve text from an HTML element:

1. **jQuery**: Uses the jQuery library to select the element and then calls its `text()` method to get the text content.
2. **Native getElementById**: Uses the native DOM API to select the element by its ID using `document.getElementById()` and then accesses its `textContent` property.
3. **Native querySelector**: Uses the native DOM API to select the element using `document.querySelector()` and then accesses its `textContent` property.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches on a desktop Windows platform with Chrome 105 browser.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **jQuery**:
	* Pros: jQuery is a well-known library that provides a simple and convenient way to manipulate HTML documents. It also supports various versions and browsers.
	* Cons: jQuery adds extra overhead due to its own JavaScript execution context, which can slow down performance-critical code paths.
2. **Native getElementById**:
	* Pros: This approach is lightweight and doesn't add any additional library or framework overhead. It's a native API that's widely supported across browsers.
	* Cons: This approach requires more DOM manipulation to access the element's text content, which can be less efficient than jQuery's `text()` method.
3. **Native querySelector**:
	* Pros: This approach is similar to `getElementById`, but it allows for more flexibility and expressiveness in selecting elements using CSS selectors.
	* Cons: Like `getElementById`, this approach requires additional DOM manipulation, which can be less efficient than jQuery's `text()` method.

**Library used:**

The benchmark uses the jQuery library version 3.6.1, which is a relatively old version but still widely supported.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax:**

None of the benchmark test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax. They only rely on standard DOM APIs and jQuery's `text()` method for simplicity.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were to extend this benchmark, you could also consider testing other approaches, such as:

* Using a CSS selector library like Sizzle or CSS Selectors to select elements.
* Implementing custom parsing logic for the HTML element text content.
* Using a different browser or platform to test the performance of these approaches.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs and requirements, so it's essential to consider the specific use case and performance characteristics when choosing the best method for your application.

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/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery	317679.6 Ops/sec
native getElementById	1133194.6 Ops/sec
native querySelector	644994.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Get text from element (jquery vs native) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs native getElementById vs native querySelector

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

native getElementById

native querySelector

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):