Benchmark: find vs id selector

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="BalanceInfo" class="d-flex flex-md-row justify-content-between">
    <div class="hide">
        <span class="text-bold">Oustanding Balance:</span>
        <span id="OutstandingBalance"></span>
    </div>
    <div class="hide">
        <span class="text-bold">Oustanding Balance Warning:</span>
        <span id="OutstandingBalanceWarning"></span>
    </div>
    <div class="hide">
        <span class="text-bold">Oustanding Balance Stop:</span>
        <span id="OutstandingBalanceStop"></span>
    </div>
    <div id="StatusNew" class="w-100 text-right">
        <span class="text-bold">Status: </span>
        <label class="text-success">New</label>
    </div>
</div>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.4.1/jquery.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var balanceInfo = $("#BalanceInfo");

Tests:

id selector
$("#OutstandingBalanceWarning")
find with id selector
balanceInfo.find("#OutstandingBalanceWarning")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
id selector
find with id selector

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested on the provided JSON.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two ways to select an HTML element: using an `id` selector (`"$(\"#OutstandingBalanceWarning\")"`), and using the `find()` method with a selector (`"balanceInfo.find(\"#OutstandingBalanceWarning\")"`).

**Options being compared**

1. **Id Selector**: This approach uses the `id` attribute of the HTML element to select it.
2. **Find() Method**: This approach uses the `find()` method of the jQuery object to search for an element that matches a given selector.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Id Selector**
	+ Pros: Fast, accurate, and reliable. The browser can directly access the DOM element by its ID.
	+ Cons: Limited to elements with unique IDs (no multiple elements can have the same ID).
	+ Additional overhead: jQuery needs to be loaded, which might slow down the benchmark if not necessary.
* **Find() Method**
	+ Pros: Flexible, as it can select multiple elements that match a given selector. It also allows for more advanced selectors and conditions.
	+ Cons: Slower than id selectors because it requires iterating through the DOM tree to find matching elements.
	+ Additional overhead: jQuery needs to be loaded.

**Library and purpose**

The library being used here is jQuery, which is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation and event handling. The `find()` method is part of jQuery's API for searching and selecting elements in the DOM.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There doesn't seem to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

**Other considerations**

In addition to the pros and cons mentioned above, it's worth considering that:

* The `find()` method can be slower than an id selector because of the overhead of iterating through the DOM tree.
* However, the `find()` method provides more flexibility and is often necessary for complex DOM selections.
* Browser performance optimizations, such as caching and memoization, may affect the results of this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

If you want to write a similar benchmark or test other JavaScript libraries, here are some alternatives:

1. Use a different library: Consider using VanillaJS (JavaScript without external libraries) or another DOM manipulation library like React or Angular.
2. Test different selectors: Include more advanced selectors, such as class names, tag names, or attributes.
3. Add more elements to the HTML: Increase the number of matching elements to simulate real-world scenarios where performance might vary.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark definition and implementation.

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/91.0.4472.124 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
id selector	1370426.9 Ops/sec
find with id selector	888477.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

find vs id selector (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: id selector vs find with id selector

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

id selector

find with id selector

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):