<script src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.0.min.js"></script>
<div id="testElement" class="test class list classes"></div>
var el = $("#testElement")[0];
var el = document.getElementById('testElement');
var el = document.querySelector("#testElement");
var el = $(document).find("#testElement");
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
jQuery | |
getElementById | |
querySelector | |
jQuery Find |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
jQuery | 2996945.8 Ops/sec |
getElementById | 8669229.0 Ops/sec |
querySelector | 4188879.5 Ops/sec |
jQuery Find | 1425765.1 Ops/sec |
Overview of the Benchmark
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case named "jQuery vs getElementById vs querySelector vs jQuery Find". This benchmark compares the performance of four methods to retrieve an element from an HTML document using either jQuery or vanilla JavaScript.
Tested Options and their Pros/Cons
Library Usage
In the provided benchmark, two libraries are used:
Special JS Features or Syntax
The benchmark does not explicitly mention any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as arrow functions, async/await, or Promises.
Other Alternatives
If you want to explore alternative methods for retrieving elements from an HTML document, consider the following:
Keep in mind that the choice of method depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.