Benchmark: isOrIn alternatives

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.0.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

//Add 100,000 elements
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
for (var i=0; i<10; i++){
  var outDiv = document.createElement('div');
  for (var j=0; j<100; j++){
    var midDiv = document.createElement('div');
    for (var k=0; k<100; k++){
      var inDiv = document.createElement('div');
      if(i==6 && j==60){
        if(k==60)
          inDiv.id="one";
        else if(k==61)
          inDiv.id="two";
      }
      midDiv.appendChild(inDiv)
    }
    outDiv.appendChild(midDiv)
  }
  frag.appendChild(outDiv);
}
document.body.appendChild(frag);
var innerOne = document.getElementById('one');

Tests:

is() or contains()
var found = $.is(document.body,innerOne) || $.contains(document.body,innerOne);
== or contains()
var found = document.body==innerOne || $.contains(document.body,innerOne);
!!closest.length
var found = !!$(innerOne).closest(document.body).length;
== and parentNodes
var found = false; var container = document.body; if(innerOne===document.body){ found=true } else{ var pointer = innerOne; var parent = pointer.parentNode; while(parent && pointer!==container){ if(parent === container){ found=true; break; } pointer = parent; parent = pointer.parentNode; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
is() or contains()
== or contains()
!!closest.length
== and parentNodes

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 the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of different approaches for checking whether an element is equal to (`==`) or contained within another element. The test cases use various methods, including direct comparison, using the `$.is()` method from jQuery, and a more complex recursive approach.

**Individual Test Cases**

Let's analyze each test case:

1. **`is() or contains()`**: This test case uses jQuery's `$.is()` method to check if an element is contained within another. The method checks for both equality and containment.
	* Pros: jQuery provides a convenient and efficient way to perform this operation, as it's optimized for performance.
	* Cons: Requires including the jQuery library, which can add overhead.
2. **`== or contains()`**: This test case uses a direct comparison (`==`) followed by a call to `$.contains()`.
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward, doesn't require additional libraries.
	* Cons: May be slower than using `$.is()` directly, as it involves two separate operations.
3. **`!!closest.length`**: This test case uses the `closest()` method from jQuery to find the closest ancestor of an element that matches a selector, and then checks its length.
	* Pros: Can be efficient for finding ancestors, but may not be suitable for all use cases (e.g., if the element has no matching ancestors).
	* Cons: Requires including the jQuery library, which can add overhead.
4. **`== and parentNodes`**: This test case uses a direct comparison (`==`) followed by checking the `parentNodes` property of an element.
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward, doesn't require additional libraries.
	* Cons: May be slower than using `$.is()` directly or `closest()`, as it involves two separate operations.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses jQuery (version 3.1.0) for its `$.is()` method. The library is included via a script tag in the HTML preparation code.

**Other Considerations**

* The test cases create a large number of elements to simulate real-world scenarios and reduce the impact of browser-specific optimizations.
* The benchmark uses multiple browsers (Chrome 60) to ensure results are representative of different user agent profiles.

**Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark, you could consider the following alternatives:

1. Use native JavaScript methods instead of jQuery's `$.is()` or other library functions.
2. Optimize the test cases for specific browser versions or platforms.
3. Include additional metrics, such as memory usage or garbage collection overhead, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of performance.

Overall, this benchmark provides a good starting point for comparing different approaches to element containment checks in JavaScript. By analyzing the results and considering the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make informed decisions about which methods to use in their own projects.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/60.0.3112.113 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 60 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
is() or contains()	0.0 Ops/sec
== or contains()	637649.7 Ops/sec
!!closest.length	247646.8 Ops/sec
== and parentNodes	701283.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

isOrIn alternatives (version: 0)

Testing different methods of checking whether an element is or is in another element

Comparing performance of: is() or contains() vs == or contains() vs !!closest.length vs == and parentNodes

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

is() or contains()

== or contains()

!!closest.length

== and parentNodes

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):