Benchmark: getElementsByClassName[0] vs querySelector (vsolonar)

HTML Preparation code:

<div class="testElement"></div>

Tests:

getElementsByClassName
var el = document.getElementsByClassName('testElement')[0];
querySelectorAll
var el = document.querySelector('.testElement');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
getElementsByClassName
querySelectorAll

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases: `getElementsByClassName` and `querySelectorAll`. These methods are used to select elements in an HTML document. Specifically, they're being compared on a `<div>` element with class `testElement`.

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. `getElementsByClassName`
2. `querySelectorAll`

These two methods serve the same purpose: selecting an element by its class name.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**`getElementsByClassName`**

Pros:

* More compatible with older browsers (IE8+, Safari 3+) that don't support `querySelectorAll`.
* Can be used to select multiple elements at once.
* Generally faster for small documents or single-element selections.

Cons:

* Less efficient than `querySelectorAll` for large documents or multiple-element selections.
* May return a live HTMLCollection, which can lead to performance issues if not handled correctly.

**`querySelectorAll`**

Pros:

* More modern and widely supported (Chrome 1+, Firefox 4+, Safari 5+).
* Returns a NodeList, which is more efficient than an HTMLCollection.
* Can be used to select multiple elements at once.

Cons:

* Less compatible with older browsers.
* May not work as expected if the CSS selector is too complex or uses pseudo-elements.

**Other considerations**

Both methods can be affected by various factors, such as:

* Document size: For larger documents, `querySelectorAll` might outperform `getElementsByClassName`.
* Element count: If you need to select multiple elements, both methods are suitable.
* Browser support: Make sure to test on different browsers and versions.

**Library usage**

There is no library used in these benchmark cases. The `getElementsByClassName` method is a native JavaScript function, while `querySelectorAll` is also native but part of the DOM API.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested here. These methods are basic and widely supported.

Now, let's discuss some alternative approaches that could be used:

* **CSS selectors**: Instead of using `getElementsByClassName` and `querySelectorAll`, you can use CSS selectors to select elements. This approach is often more efficient but might not work as expected if the CSS selector is too complex.
* **QuerySelector API with query**: If you need to support older browsers, you can use the QuerySelector API with a query string to achieve similar results.
* **JQuery or other libraries**: If you're working in an environment where `getElementsByClassName` and `querySelectorAll` are not supported, you might consider using a library like jQuery that provides similar functionality.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional dependencies or compatibility issues.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:92.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/92.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 92 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
getElementsByClassName	446109.3 Ops/sec
querySelectorAll	416802.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

getElementsByClassName[0] vs querySelector (vsolonar) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: getElementsByClassName vs querySelectorAll

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

getElementsByClassName

querySelectorAll

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):