What is the difference between jQuery: text() and html() ?

Question

What the difference between text() and html() functions in jQuery ?

$(\"#div\").html(\'Linkhello\         


        

Answer 1

((please update if necessary, this answer is a Wiki))

Sub-question: when only text, what is faster, .text() or .html()?

Answer: .html() is faster! See here a "behaviour test-kit" for all the question.

So, in conclusion, if you have "only a text", use html() method.

Note: Doesn't make sense? Remember that the .html() function is only a wrapper to .innerHTML, but in the .text() function jQuery adds an "entity filter", and this filter naturally consumes time.

---

Ok, if you really want performance... Use pure Javascript to access direct text-replace by the nodeValue property. Benchmark conclusions:

• jQuery's .html() is ~2x faster than .text().
• pure JS' .innerHTML is ~3x faster than .html().
• pure JS' .nodeValue is ~50x faster than .html(), ~100x than .text(), and ~20x than .innerHTML.

PS: .textContent property was introduced with DOM-Level-3, .nodeValue is DOM-Level-2 and is faster (!).

See this complete benchmark:

// Using jQuery:
simplecron.restart(); for (var i=1; i<3000; i++) 
    $("#work").html('BENCHMARK WORK');
var ht = simplecron.duration();
simplecron.restart(); for (var i=1; i<3000; i++) 
    $("#work").text('BENCHMARK WORK');
alert("JQuery (3000x): \nhtml="+ht+"\ntext="+simplecron.duration());

// Using pure JavaScript only:
simplecron.restart(); for (var i=1; i<3000; i++)
    document.getElementById('work').innerHTML = 'BENCHMARK WORK';
ht = simplecron.duration();
simplecron.restart(); for (var i=1; i<3000; i++) 
    document.getElementById('work').nodeValue = 'BENCHMARK WORK';
alert("Pure JS (3000x):\ninnerHTML="+ht+"\nnodeValue="+simplecron.duration());