Benchmark: Jquery Vs VanillaJS Vs jQuery with cache

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.6.0.min.js'></script>

<div id='test' data-count="0"></div>

Tests:

Jquery
for(let i = 0; i < 10; i++) { $('#test').text("actual count value is : "+$('#test').data('count')); $('#test').data('count', +$('#test').data('count')+1); }
Vanilla JS
for(let i = 0; i < 10; i++) { document.querySelector('#test').innerText = "actual count value is : "+document.querySelector('#test').dataset.count; document.querySelector('#test').dataset.count = +document.querySelector('#test').dataset.count+1; }
Jquery cache
var $test = $('#test'); for(let i = 0; i < 10; i++) { $test.text("actual count value is : "+$('#test').data('count')); $test.data('count', +$('#test').data('count')+1); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Jquery
Vanilla JS
Jquery cache

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/95.0.4638.69 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 95 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Jquery	15205.1 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS	21786.4 Ops/sec
Jquery cache	19634.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark and the pros and cons of each approach.

**What's being tested:**

The benchmark compares the performance of three approaches:

1. **Vanilla JavaScript**: This is the native JavaScript code that performs the update operation without using any external libraries.
2. **jQuery (without caching)**: This code uses jQuery, a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation, but doesn't take advantage of caching to minimize function calls.
3. **jQuery with caching**: This code also uses jQuery, but includes a cache object to store and reuse the results of previous function calls.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of each approach in terms of:

* Execution time (ExecutionsPerSecond): The average number of function calls executed per second.
* Memory usage: Although not directly measured, we can infer that caching might help reduce memory allocation and deallocation overhead.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Vanilla JavaScript**:
	* Pros:
		+ No external dependencies (e.g., jQuery library).
		+ Simple to implement.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower due to the lack of caching or optimization.
2. **jQuery (without caching)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Uses a well-known and widely-used JavaScript library.
		+ May take advantage of browser optimizations.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires loading an external library, which can increase overhead.
		+ Doesn't utilize caching, leading to slower performance for repeated function calls.
3. **jQuery with caching**:
	* Pros:
		+ Reuses previously computed results, reducing the number of function calls.
		+ May improve performance due to caching.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an additional library (jQuery) and setup.
		+ Can lead to increased memory usage if not implemented carefully.

**Library usage:**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used in all three test cases. The cache object is only included in the third test case ("Jquery cache").

**Special JavaScript features or syntax:**

This benchmark doesn't explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's typical for vanilla JavaScript and jQuery. However, it does rely on browser optimizations, such as caching (in the "Jquery with caching" test case).

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring other approaches, consider these alternatives:

* Using a lightweight alternative to jQuery, like jQuery Lite.
* Implementing your own caching mechanism for repeated function calls.
* Utilizing a JavaScript framework or library that provides built-in caching and optimization features (e.g., React, Angular).

Keep in mind that the specific implementation details might vary depending on the requirements of your project.

Related benchmarks:

Jquery Vs VanillaJS Vs jQuery with cache (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Jquery vs Vanilla JS vs Jquery cache

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Jquery

Vanilla JS

Jquery cache

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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