Benchmark: Jquery versions Benchmarch 3.6

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="idSelector"></div>
<div class="classSelector"></div>
<ul id="iteration">
    <li></li>
    <li></li>
    <li></li>
    <li></li>
    <li></li>
    <li></li>
    <li></li>
    <li></li>
    <li></li>
    <li></li>
</ul>
<div id="cssGetter" style="color: black;"></div>
<div id="cssSetter" style="color: black;"></div>
<div id="find">
    <span></span>
    <div>
        <strong></strong>
    </div>
</div>

<script type="text/javascript" src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.8.3/jquery.min.js">
</script>
<script>
  var $jq18 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.9.1/jquery.min.js">
</script>
<script>
  var $jq19 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.12.4/jquery.min.js">
</script>
<script>
  var $jq112 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.4/jquery.min.js">
</script>
<script>
  var $jq224 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.2.1/jquery.min.js">
</script>
<script>
  var $jq321 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.6.0/jquery.min.js">
</script>
<script>
  var $jq360 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>

Script Preparation code:

function tests($) {
  // Filter Next
  $('#iteration li').filter(':first').next();
  
  // Filter Prev
  $('#iteration li').filter(':last').prev();
  
  // Non-existant Class
  $('.someClass');
  
  // Non-existant ID
  $('#someID');
  
  // Find
  $('#find').find('strong');
  
  // Set color
  $('#cssSetter').css('color', 'red');
  
  // Get color
  $('#cssGetter').css('color');
  
  // Iteration
  $('#iteration li').each(function(i, e) {
    i++;
  });
  
  // Class selector
  $('.classSelector');
  
  // ID selector
  $('#idSelector');
}

Tests:

1.8.3
tests($jq18);
1.9.1
tests($jq18);
1.12.14
tests($jq112);
2.2.4
tests($jq224);
3.2.1
tests($jq321);
3.6
tests($jq360);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1.8.3
1.9.1
1.12.14
2.2.4
3.2.1
3.6

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a simple benchmark of jQuery versions. The benchmark consists of six test cases, each testing a different version of jQuery (1.8.3, 1.9.1, 1.12.14, 2.2.4, 3.2.1, and 3.6).

**Test Cases**

Each test case is represented by an object in the JSON array. The `Benchmark Definition` field specifies the JavaScript code that will be executed for each version of jQuery. In this case, the code simply calls the `tests()` function with a variable `$jqX`, where `X` represents the jQuery version.

For example, the first test case is:

```json
{
  "Benchmark Definition": "tests($jq18);",
  "Test Name": "1.8.3"
}
```

This means that the `tests()` function will be called with `$jq18`, which is a variable referencing jQuery 1.8.3.

**Library**

The `$.noConflict(true)` call in the JavaScript code suggests that the benchmark is testing the performance of jQuery in a specific context, possibly to avoid conflicts with other libraries or DOM mutations.

**Comparison**

The test cases are comparing the execution time of each jQuery version on different hardware configurations (device platform and operating system). The comparison is done by executing each test case multiple times (multiple executions per second) and measuring the average execution time for each version.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of using this benchmarking approach:

Pros:

* Simple and easy to understand
* Can be used to compare performance across different hardware configurations
* Allows users to test specific versions of jQuery

Cons:

* Limited scalability (only 6 test cases)
* May not accurately represent real-world usage patterns
* Does not account for other factors that may affect performance, such as network latency or DOM size.

**Comparison of jQuery Versions**

Based on the latest benchmark result, we can see that:

* jQuery 3.6 performs the best with an average execution time of approximately 30292.2265625 executions per second.
* jQuery 3.2.1 has a slightly higher execution time (approximately 29668.3359375 executions per second).
* jQuery 2.2.4 has a moderate execution time (approximately 43299.4453125 executions per second).
* Older versions of jQuery (1.8.3 and 1.9.1) have the highest execution times (approximately 40809.51171875 and 38112.640625 executions per second, respectively).

Keep in mind that these results are specific to this benchmarking approach and may not reflect real-world performance differences between these versions of jQuery.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1.8.3	8912.7 Ops/sec
1.9.1	8918.3 Ops/sec
1.12.14	12391.7 Ops/sec
2.2.4	12979.3 Ops/sec
3.2.1	12141.9 Ops/sec
3.6	11867.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Jquery versions Benchmarch 3.6 (version: 0)

SImple benchmark of jQuery versions

Comparing performance of: 1.8.3 vs 1.9.1 vs 1.12.14 vs 2.2.4 vs 3.2.1 vs 3.6

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1.8.3

1.9.1

1.12.14

2.2.4

3.2.1

3.6

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):