Benchmark: Jquery Vs VanillaJS + specifying ID/class

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; }
Vanilla JS specifying ID/class
for(let i = 0; i < 10; i++) { document.getElementById('test').innerText = "actual count value is : "+document.getElementById('test').dataset.count; document.getElementById('test').dataset.count = +document.getElementById('test').dataset.count+1; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Jquery
Vanilla JS
Vanilla JS specifying ID/class

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.182 Safari/537.36 Edg/88.0.705.81

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Jquery	657.6 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS	8113.4 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS specifying ID/class	8087.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, the different approaches compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is testing three different JavaScript approaches to increment a counter value in a HTML element:

1. **JQuery**: Uses the jQuery library to access and update the `data-count` attribute of an HTML element.
2. **Vanilla JS**: Uses native JavaScript methods (e.g., `document.querySelector()`, `innerText`) to access and update the same `data-count` attribute.
3. **Vanilla JS specifying ID/class**: Similar to Vanilla JS, but uses `document.getElementById()` and `innerText` instead of `querySelector()`.

**Options compared:**

* jQuery library vs native JavaScript methods
* Using an ID vs using a class selector

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **JQuery**:
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to access and update attributes with the `$()` function.
		+ Can be more convenient for complex DOM manipulations.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds an additional library dependency, increasing bundle size.
		+ May have performance overhead due to the additional library.
2. **Vanilla JS**:
	* Pros:
		+ No additional library dependency, reducing bundle size.
		+ Native methods may be faster and more efficient.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual DOM manipulation, which can be error-prone.
		+ May require more code to achieve the same result as jQuery.
3. **Vanilla JS specifying ID/class**:
	* Pros:
		+ Combines the benefits of native methods with the convenience of using an ID.
	* Cons:
		+ Still requires manual DOM manipulation, and may have performance overhead.

**Library used:**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used as a library to access and update attributes. The `data-count` attribute is set on the HTML element, and jQuery's `$()` function is used to dynamically update its value.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark, such as ES6 modules, async/await, or Promises.

**Other considerations:**

* **Browser performance:** The benchmark results show that Chrome 88 performs better for Vanilla JS specifying ID/class (657.6325073242188 executions per second) compared to the other two approaches.
* **Library dependency:** Using jQuery introduces an additional library dependency, which may impact bundle size and performance.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives to test these benchmarks could include:

* Testing with different browsers or browser versions
* Adding more complex DOM manipulations or calculations to the benchmark
* Comparing the results of using different attribute names (e.g., `data-attribute` instead of `data-count`)
* Using different HTML structures or element selectors.

Related benchmarks:

Jquery Vs VanillaJS + specifying ID/class (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Jquery vs Vanilla JS vs Vanilla JS specifying ID/class

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Jquery

Vanilla JS

Vanilla JS specifying ID/class

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):