Benchmark: jquery bench - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.12.4/jquery.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq1124 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.4/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq224 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.6.0/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq360 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div>
  <ul id="menu">
    <li class="menu-item">1</li>
    <li class="menu-item">2</li>
    <li class="menu-item">3</li>
    <li class="menu-item">4</li>  
  </ul>
</div>

AخA
 
<script src='https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.12.4/jquery.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq1124 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.4/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq224 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.6.0/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq360 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div>
  <ul id="menu">
    <li class="menu-item">1</li>
    <li class="menu-item">2</li>
    <li class="menu-item">3</li>
    <li class="menu-item">4</li>  
  </ul>
</div>

Script Preparation code:

function tests($) {
    $(".menu-item").eq(2).closest("ul").css({
      "background-color": "red"
    }).parent().css({
      "border": "1px solid blue"
    }).end().end().remove();
}

 
function tests($) {    $(".menu-item").eq(2).closest("ul").css({      "background-color": "red"    }).parent().css({      "border": "1px solid blue"    }).end().end().remove();}

Tests:

$jq1124
tests($jq1124);
tests($jq1124);
$jq224
tests($jq224);
tests($jq224);
$jq360
tests($jq360);
tests($jq360);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
$jq1124
$jq224
$jq360

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/91.0.4472.106 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
$jq1124	521797.8 Ops/sec
$jq224	491918.9 Ops/sec
$jq360	497691.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark.

What is being tested?

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. In this specific case, we have a benchmark that tests the performance of jQuery version 1.12.4, version 2.2.4, and version 3.6.0.

Options compared:

The benchmark compares the performance of three different versions of jQuery:

jQuery 1.12.4
jQuery 2.2.4
jQuery 3.6.0

Each test case uses a similar script preparation code, which tests how long it takes to run a specific function using each version of jQuery.

Pros and Cons:

Using multiple versions of the same library (in this case, jQuery) for benchmarking can provide valuable insights into:

Backward compatibility: Comparing older versions with newer ones helps identify performance differences between versions.
API changes: When comparing new features or changes in the API, it's essential to test both the old and new ways of doing things to ensure compatibility and performance implications.

However, there are also some potential drawbacks:

Overhead: Including multiple versions can add complexity and overhead to the benchmarking process.
Confounding variables: Using different versions might introduce confounding variables that affect the results, such as changes in caching or optimization techniques between versions.

Library usage:

In this benchmark, jQuery is used with its $.noConflict() method, which allows multiple versions of jQuery to be loaded on the same page without conflicts. This is useful for testing different versions of jQuery together.

The .noConflict() method was introduced in jQuery 1.4.0 and has since become a standard way to manage multiple libraries on the same page. By using this method, we can isolate the effects of each version of jQuery independently.

Special JS feature or syntax:

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of $.noConflict() and the inclusion of multiple versions of jQuery might be considered a best practice for managing library conflicts in web development.

Alternatives:

If you were to create a similar benchmark using other libraries or frameworks, here are some alternatives:

For testing different versions of a library:
- Using multiple instances of the same library, each with its own scope.
- Creating a wrapper function that takes different versions of the library as arguments.
For comparing different libraries or frameworks:
- Use a benchmarking framework like Benchmark.js or Microbenchmark.
- Create test cases for specific scenarios or use cases.

Keep in mind that the specifics will depend on the requirements and goals of your project.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of three different versions of jQuery:

* jQuery 1.12.4
* jQuery 2.2.4
* jQuery 3.6.0

Each test case uses a similar script preparation code, which tests how long it takes to run a specific function using each version of jQuery.

**Pros and Cons:**

Using multiple versions of the same library (in this case, jQuery) for benchmarking can provide valuable insights into:

* **Backward compatibility:** Comparing older versions with newer ones helps identify performance differences between versions.
* **API changes:** When comparing new features or changes in the API, it's essential to test both the old and new ways of doing things to ensure compatibility and performance implications.

However, there are also some potential drawbacks:

* **Overhead:** Including multiple versions can add complexity and overhead to the benchmarking process.
* **Confounding variables:** Using different versions might introduce confounding variables that affect the results, such as changes in caching or optimization techniques between versions.

**Library usage:**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used with its `$.noConflict()` method, which allows multiple versions of jQuery to be loaded on the same page without conflicts. This is useful for testing different versions of jQuery together.

The `.noConflict()` method was introduced in jQuery 1.4.0 and has since become a standard way to manage multiple libraries on the same page. By using this method, we can isolate the effects of each version of jQuery independently.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of `$.noConflict()` and the inclusion of multiple versions of jQuery might be considered a best practice for managing library conflicts in web development.

**Alternatives:**

If you were to create a similar benchmark using other libraries or frameworks, here are some alternatives:

* For testing different versions of a library:
	+ Using multiple instances of the same library, each with its own scope.
	+ Creating a wrapper function that takes different versions of the library as arguments.
* For comparing different libraries or frameworks:
	+ Use a benchmarking framework like Benchmark.js or Microbenchmark.
	+ Create test cases for specific scenarios or use cases.

Keep in mind that the specifics will depend on the requirements and goals of your project.

Related benchmarks:

jquery bench (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: $jq1124 vs $jq224 vs $jq360

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

$jq1124

$jq224

$jq360

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):