Benchmark: Complex find and select

HTML Preparation code:

<div class="container">
  <div class="sub">
    foobar
  </div>
  <div class="sub">
    foobar
  </div>
  <div class="sub">
    foobar
  </div>
  <div class="sub">
    foobar
  </div>
  <div class="sub">
    foobar
  </div>
  <div class="sub">
    foobar
  </div>
  <div class="sub">
    foobar
  </div>
  <div class="sub">
    foobar
  </div>
  <div class="sub">
    foobar
  </div>
</div>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.4/jquery.min.js">
</script>
<script>
var container = $('#container')
</script>

Tests:

complex select
$('.container .sub');
complex find
$('.sub', '.container');
Complex find cached
container.find('.sub');
complex find scoped
$('.sub', container).length;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
complex select
complex find
Complex find cached
complex find scoped

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 in the provided JSON data.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `benchmark definition` is a JavaScript expression that describes what operation is to be performed on the HTML document. There are four different definitions:

1. **`.('.container .sub')`**: This selects all elements with both classes `container` and `sub`.
2. **`.('.sub', '.container')`**: This selects all elements with class `sub`, regardless of whether they also have class `container`.
3. **`container.find('.sub')`**: This searches for elements with class `sub` within the `container` element.
4. **`.('.sub', container).length`**: This selects all elements with class `sub` that are descendants of the `container` element, and then returns the length of the resulting set.

**Options compared**

The four benchmark definitions test different aspects of how JavaScript selects and finds elements in an HTML document:

* `.('.container .sub')` tests the performance of selecting multiple classes on a single element.
* `.('.sub', '.container')` tests the performance of using `closest()` or similar method to find elements with one class within another.
* `container.find('.sub')` tests the performance of searching for elements within a container element.
* `.('.sub', container).length` tests the performance of selecting and counting descendant elements.

**Pros and cons**

Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages:

* Selecting multiple classes on a single element (`'.container .sub'`) is generally more efficient, as it avoids unnecessary DOM lookups. However, if the HTML structure is complex or contains many duplicate classes, this method may not be optimal.
* Using `closest()` or similar methods (`'.sub', '.container')` can be useful when working with legacy code that uses these APIs, but they may be slower than native CSS selectors.
* Searching for elements within a container element (`container.find('.sub')`) is often used in jQuery-like libraries, but it can lead to slower performance compared to native CSS selectors.
* Counting descendant elements (`'.sub', container).length` is useful when you need to know the number of matching elements, but it may be slower than using `find()` or `querySelectorAll()`.

**Library usage**

The `benchmark definition` uses jQuery's `$()` function to select elements. The test code uses jQuery's `.find()` method to search for elements within a container element.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax**

None of the benchmark definitions use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as ES6 classes, async/await, or modern web APIs.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for measuring performance in JavaScript include:

* V8 Profiler (Chrome DevTools)
* Chrome Perfometer
* Node.js Inspector
* WebPageTest

These tools can provide more detailed information about the performance characteristics of your code and help you identify bottlenecks.

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
complex select	39783.2 Ops/sec
complex find	29085.2 Ops/sec
Complex find cached	1324054.8 Ops/sec
complex find scoped	691879.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Complex find and select (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: complex select vs complex find vs Complex find cached vs complex find scoped

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

complex select

complex find

Complex find cached

complex find scoped

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):