Benchmark: jquery 1 vs 2 vs 3.6.1

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.12.4/jquery.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq1124 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.4/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq224 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.6.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq331 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div>
  <ul id="menu">
    <li class="menu-item">1</li>
    <li class="menu-item">2</li>
    <li class="menu-item">3</li>
    <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li> 
  </ul>
</div>

Script Preparation code:

function tests($) {
    $(".menu-item").eq(2).closest("ul").css({
      "background-color": "red"
    }).parent().css({
      "border": "1px solid blue"
    }).append($("<p></p>").text("Text.").css({
      "background-color": "green"
    })).end().end().remove();
  console.log('tests' + $);
}

Tests:

jq1.12.4
tests($jq1124);
jq2.2.4
tests($jq224);
jq3.4.1
tests($jq331);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jq1.12.4
jq2.2.4
jq3.4.1

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript libraries is crucial for understanding their impact on website loading times, memory usage, and overall user experience.

The provided JSON data represents a benchmark test that compares the execution speed of three different versions of jQuery: 1.12.4, 2.2.4, and 3.6.1.

**Library Comparison**

In this test, the same JavaScript code is executed with each version of jQuery to measure their performance differences. The `tests` function takes a jQuery object as an argument (`$`) and performs a specific operation (in this case, modifying the DOM).

The pros of comparing different versions of jQuery include:

1. **Versioning**: Understanding which version is faster or more efficient can help developers choose the right version for their project.
2. **Library maintenance**: Knowing which features are slowest or most resource-intensive helps maintainers optimize and improve the library.
3. **Benchmarks**: Comparing performance across versions provides a baseline for future comparisons, allowing developers to track progress and identify areas for improvement.

However, there are some potential cons:

1. **Overemphasis on minor version differences**: Focusing too much on minor version changes might lead to unnecessary optimizations or even introduce new issues.
2. **Missing context**: Without considering the broader JavaScript ecosystem, benchmarking results might not be entirely representative of real-world usage scenarios.

**Other Considerations**

Some other factors that could impact performance in this test include:

1. **Browser-specific differences**: Different browsers may execute JavaScript code differently, which can affect performance.
2. **JavaScript engine optimization**: The browser's JavaScript engine (e.g., SpiderMonkey for Firefox) can also influence performance.
3. **Memory allocation and deallocation**: The library's memory management practices can impact performance.

**Library Usage**

The `$.noConflict()` method is used to force jQuery to return a new version of itself, which is then passed as an argument to the `tests` function. This helps isolate the effects of different versions of jQuery while preserving compatibility with existing code that relies on the original version.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this test.

**Alternatives**

Some alternatives for measuring JavaScript performance include:

1. **Benchmarking libraries**: Tools like Benchmark.js, Benchmarkr, or micro-benchmark allow you to write and run custom benchmarks.
2. **JavaScript engines**: Measuring the performance of specific JavaScript engines (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey) can provide insight into their optimization strategies.
3. **WebAssembly**: Running code in WebAssembly can help compare the performance of different libraries and implementations in a more controlled environment.

Keep in mind that measuring performance is just one aspect of evaluating libraries or code. Other factors like maintainability, documentation, and compatibility should also be considered when choosing a library or implementing new features.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:106.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/106.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 106 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jq1.12.4	25352.6 Ops/sec
jq2.2.4	33854.4 Ops/sec
jq3.4.1	34924.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jquery 1 vs 2 vs 3.6.1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jq1.12.4 vs jq2.2.4 vs jq3.4.1

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jq1.12.4

jq2.2.4

jq3.4.1

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):