Benchmark: Find vs select - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div>
<div class="div1"><span>stuff</span><span>stuff</span><span>stuff</span><span>stuff</span><span>stuff</span><span>stuff</span><span>stuff</span><span>stuff</span><span>stuff</span><h1>H1</h1><span>stuff</span><span>stuff</span><span>stuff</span><span>stuff</span><span>stuff</span><span>stuff</span><h2>h2</h1></div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div><div>stuff</div>

Tests:

select
$(".div1 h2");
find
var $div = $('.div1'); $div.find('h2');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
select
find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Find vs select` benchmark tests two different approaches to selecting elements in JavaScript: the `.find()` method and the `querySelectorSelector` function (which is likely a jQuery selector).

**Options being compared**

1. **`.find()` method**: This approach uses the `find()` method on an element, passing the CSS selector for the desired element.
2. **`querySelectorSelector` function**: This approach uses a jQuery selector to select the desired elements.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* `.find()` method:
	+ Pros:
		- Can be more efficient when searching for multiple elements within a single container, as it only traverses the DOM once.
		- Can be useful for traversing descendant elements in a specific order (e.g., `$( '.div1 h2' ).find( 'h3' )`).
	+ Cons:
		- Returns an array of elements, even if only one element is found.
		- May not be as efficient when searching for a single element, especially if the DOM is large and complex.
* `querySelectorSelector` function:
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and readable than using `.find()` method with multiple traversals.
		- Faster execution time compared to `.find()` method, as it uses CSS selectors to directly select elements.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be as flexible or powerful as the `.find()` method when dealing with complex DOM structures.

**Library and its purpose**

The provided benchmark uses jQuery, a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. The `querySelectorSelector` function is likely part of the jQuery library, providing an efficient way to select elements using CSS selectors.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, promises, or modern language features like arrow functions or template literals.

**Other alternatives**

Other approaches for selecting elements in JavaScript include:

* Using `document.querySelector()` and `document.querySelectorAll()`, which are part of the DOM API.
* Using CSS selectors directly in JavaScript code (e.g., `document.getElementById('div1')`).
* Using other libraries like vanilla JavaScript-based DOM manipulation functions, such as `querySelectorAll()` from the `DOM` module.

The choice of approach ultimately depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/58.0.3029.81 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 58 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
select	43719.1 Ops/sec
find	146647.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Find vs select (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: select vs find

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

select

find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):