Benchmark: Jquery Vs VanillaJS + specifying ID/class with count without reset

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++; }

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: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 16_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.1 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 16 on iOS 16.1.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Jquery	53078.9 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS	81705.3 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS specifying ID/class	115331.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

The benchmark compares three approaches to incrementing a counter value in JavaScript:

1. **jQuery**: The first test case uses jQuery, a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation. In this test, jQuery is used to get the element with the ID "test", update its text content, and then increment its data-count property.
2. **Vanilla JS**: The second test case uses vanilla JavaScript, without any external libraries. This approach involves using the `document.querySelector` method to select the element by ID or class, updating its innerText property, and then incrementing its dataset.count property manually.
3. **Vanilla JS with specifying ID/class**: The third test case is similar to the second one but uses the `document.getElementById` method instead of `document.querySelector`. This approach requires knowing the exact ID of the element.

**Options being compared:**

* Using a JavaScript library like jQuery vs vanilla JavaScript
* Specifying elements by class name (Vanilla JS) vs using IDs (jQuery and Vanilla JS with specifying ID/class)
* Incrementing data-count property manually vs using the `dataset` object

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Using jQuery**: Pros:
	+ Faster execution times due to the library's optimized DOM manipulation.
	+ Easier access to common UI elements.
	+ Well-documented and widely used.
Cons:
	+ Adds extra overhead due to the library's size and complexity.
	+ May introduce security vulnerabilities if not used carefully.
* **Vanilla JS**: Pros:
	+ Lightweight and fast execution times.
	+ No external dependencies or security concerns.
	+ Can be more efficient for small-scale applications.
Cons:
	+ Requires manual DOM manipulation, which can lead to errors.
	+ Less convenient access to common UI elements compared to jQuery.
* **Vanilla JS with specifying ID/class**: Pros:
	+ More explicit and type-safe way of accessing elements by class name.
Cons:
	+ Requires knowledge of the exact ID or class name.

**Other considerations:**

* Browser-specific behavior: The benchmark results are from Mobile Safari 16 on an iOS device. Other browsers may behave differently, especially regarding element selection and data-count property updates.
* JavaScript engine optimizations: Different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8 in Chrome, SpiderMonkey in Firefox) might optimize certain operations differently, affecting the execution times.

**Alternatives:**

* **Other DOM libraries**: Libraries like React, Angular, or Vue.js may have similar performance characteristics to jQuery. However, they are typically used for more complex web applications and offer additional features.
* **Native JavaScript APIs**: Modern browsers provide native APIs like `requestAnimationFrame`, `Web Workers`, and `Web Storage` that can be used for optimization and performance-critical sections of code.

In summary, this benchmark tests the trade-offs between using a JavaScript library (jQuery) versus vanilla JavaScript, as well as the benefits and drawbacks of specifying elements by class name. The results provide insight into the performance characteristics of each approach on Mobile Safari 16.

Related benchmarks:

Jquery Vs VanillaJS + specifying ID/class with count without reset (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):