Benchmark: has vs find (jiml | 1.2)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>Page Title</title>
  <script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
</head>
<body>
  
<div class='container'>
  <h1>This is a Heading</h1>
  <p class="test">This is a paragraph.</p>  
  
  <p class="test">This is a paragraph.</p>  
  <p class="test">This is a paragraph.</p>  
  <p class="test">This is a paragraph.</p>  
  <p class="test">This is a paragraph.</p>  
  <p class="test">This is a paragraph.</p>  
  <p class="test">This is a paragraph.</p>  <p class="test">This is a paragraph.</p>  
  <p class="test">This is a paragraph.</p>  
  <p class="test">This is a paragraph.</p>  
  <p class="test">This is a paragraph.</p>  <p class="test">This is a paragraph.</p>  <p class="test">This is a paragraph.</p>  <p class="test">This is a paragraph.</p>  <p class="test">This is a paragraph.</p>  <p class="test">This is a paragraph.</p>  <p class="test">This is a paragraph.</p>  
</div>
  
</body>
</html>
<div id=''></div>

Tests:

Find
const findTest = $(".container").find(".test").length === 0; console.log(findTest);
Has
const hasTest = $(".container").has(".test").length === 0; console.log(hasTest);
Closest
const hasTest = $(".test").closest(".container").length === 0; console.log(hasTest);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Find
Has
Closest

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on the website MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares the performance of three different methods for checking if an element exists within a container in jQuery:

1. `find()`
2. `has()`
3. `closest()` with a depth limit (not explicitly set, so it's considered as a default behavior)

**Options Compared**

The three options are compared in terms of their execution time.

* `find()`: Returns the first element within the container that matches the specified selector.
* `has()`: Returns true if at least one element within the container matches the specified selector. If no elements match, it returns false.
* `closest()`: Returns the closest element to the specified selector within a certain depth limit (not explicitly set).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **find()**
	* Pros:
		+ Efficient for finding specific elements
		+ Can be faster than `has()` if the container has many elements but only one match
	* Cons:
		+ May not be suitable when checking for any element within a container
2. **has()**
	* Pros:
		+ Suitable for checking if any element exists within a container
		+ Often faster than `find()` because it stops as soon as it finds the first match
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower for finding specific elements when there are many matches
3. **closest()**
	* Pros:
		+ Suitable for cases where you need to find an element within a container with a certain depth limit
	* Cons:
		+ Not explicitly set in the benchmark definition, so its performance is not directly comparable to `find()` and `has()`

**Library: jQuery**

The `$(selector)` syntax used throughout the benchmark definition is a shorthand for selecting elements using the jQuery library. The `closest()` method is also part of the jQuery API.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. It only uses standard jQuery methods and syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to check if an element exists within a container without using jQuery, you can use vanilla JavaScript methods like `querySelector()` or `querySelectorAll()`. For example:
```javascript
const element = document.querySelector('.test');
if (element) {
  console.log(true);
} else {
  console.log(false);
}
```
Keep in mind that this approach may not be as efficient as using a library like jQuery, especially for complex DOM selections.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/102.0.5005.61 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 102 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Find	214823.8 Ops/sec
Has	200472.5 Ops/sec
Closest	51182.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

has vs find (jiml | 1.2) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Find vs Has vs Closest

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Find

Has

Closest

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):