Benchmark: jQuery vs getElementById vs querySelector 1234567890-

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.0.min.js"></script>
<div id="testElement" class="test class list classes"></div>

Tests:

jQuery
var el = $("div")[0];
querySelector
var el = document.querySelector("div");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
querySelector

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing the speed of getting an element by its ID using three different approaches:

1. **jQuery**: Using jQuery's `$` function to select an element by its ID.
2. **Vanilla JS with getElementById**: Using the `document.getElementById()` method to get an element by its ID.
3. **querySelector**: Using the `querySelector` method to get an element by its ID.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* **jQuery**:
	+ Pros: jQuery provides a convenient way to select elements using CSS selectors, and it can handle various edge cases.
	+ Cons: jQuery has a larger overhead due to its library size and the need to include additional resources.
* **Vanilla JS with getElementById**: 
	+ Pros: This approach is lightweight and doesn't require any additional libraries. It's also more straightforward to implement.
	+ Cons: This method can be slower than jQuery, especially for complex selectors, since it requires parsing the CSS selector.
* **querySelector**:
	+ Pros: The `querySelector` method is a modern standard in JavaScript, providing efficient and flexible way to select elements.
	+ Cons: It might not work as expected if the CSS selector is invalid or malformed.

**Library and purpose**

The jQuery library is used in the test case for `jQuery`. It provides a convenient way to manipulate HTML documents and handle various events. In this context, it's used to simplify the process of getting an element by its ID.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested or used in these benchmark cases.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives for selecting elements by their IDs could include:

* **`document.querySelectorAll()`**: This method returns a list of all elements that match the specified selector. It might be slower than `querySelector` but can return multiple matches.
* **`document.getElementById()` with a wildcard**: In some older browsers, it's possible to use a wildcard (`"*"`) in `getElementById` to select an element by its ID and then filter the results.

**Other considerations**

Keep in mind that the test cases only compare the speed of getting an element by its ID. Other factors like memory usage or browser-specific optimizations might not be accounted for in this benchmark.

Overall, this benchmark provides a good starting point to understand the relative performance differences between these three approaches when it comes to selecting elements by their IDs.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/111.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 111 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery	1102439.6 Ops/sec
querySelector	5196811.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery vs getElementById vs querySelector 1234567890- (version: 0)

Comparing speed of getting element by id with jQuery vs Vanilla JS with getElementById and querySelector

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs querySelector

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

querySelector

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):