Benchmark: Set 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('hello world');
native getElementById
document.getElementById('button').textContent = 'hello world';
native querySelector
document.querySelector('#button').textContent = 'hello world';

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 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test that compares the performance of two approaches: using jQuery to set text from an element, and using native JavaScript methods (`getElementById` and `querySelector`) to achieve the same result.

**Options Compared**

The test case compares three options:

1. **jQuery**: Uses the jQuery library to select the element and set its text content.
2. **native getElementById**: Uses the native JavaScript method `getElementById` to get a reference to the element and then sets its text content using the `textContent` property.
3. **native querySelector**: Uses the native JavaScript method `querySelector` to get a reference to the element and then sets its text content using the `textContent` property.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **jQuery**:
	* Pros: jQuery provides a simpler and more concise way to select elements and manipulate their attributes.
	* Cons: Requires including an additional library, which can add overhead and potential security risks if not properly sanitized.
2. **native getElementById**:
	* Pros: Native method, so no additional library is required.
	* Cons: Can be less efficient than jQuery's selector engine, especially for complex selections.
3. **native querySelector**:
	* Pros: Similar performance to `getElementById` and a more modern way of selecting elements.
	* Cons: May have compatibility issues with older browsers that don't support `querySelector`.

**Library Description**

The test case uses the jQuery library, which is a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation. It provides a simple and intuitive API for selecting elements, manipulating their attributes, and adding event listeners.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

For native methods like `getElementById` and `querySelector`, other alternatives might include:

* **native querySelectorAll**: Returns all elements that match the specified selector.
* **native getElementsByTagName**: Returns all elements with the specified tag name.
* **using CSS selectors**: Could be used instead of `querySelector` or `querySelectorAll`, but might have compatibility issues with older browsers.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided HTML preparation code includes a link to include jQuery in the test environment. The `Script Preparation Code` field is empty, suggesting that no additional scripts are required for this benchmark.

I hope this explanation helps!

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/106.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 106 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery	344481.9 Ops/sec
native getElementById	5892305.5 Ops/sec
native querySelector	3229059.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Set 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 26 days ago):