Benchmark: jQuery versions Mehman2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.3.1.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq171 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src='https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.6.0.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq1113 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src='https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.6.1.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq1124 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.6.2.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq224 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.6.3.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq331 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.6.4.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq341 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.7.0.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq360 = $.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>  
  </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:

Test jQuery 1.7.1
tests($jq171);
Test jQuery 1.11.3
tests($jq1113);
Test jQuery 1.12.4
tests($jq1124);
Test jQuery 2.2.4
tests($jq224);
Test jQuery 3.3.1
tests($jq331);
Test jQuery 3.4.1
tests($jq341);
Test jQuery 3.6.0
tests($jq360);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Test jQuery 1.7.1
Test jQuery 1.11.3
Test jQuery 1.12.4
Test jQuery 2.2.4
Test jQuery 3.3.1
Test jQuery 3.4.1
Test jQuery 3.6.0

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of different JavaScript libraries and versions is crucial for developers to make informed decisions about which library to use in their projects.

The provided benchmark definition json represents a test case that compares the performance of different versions of jQuery (a popular JavaScript library used for DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX interactions) on a Windows 10 desktop with Chrome 113 as the browser.

Here's what options are compared:

1. **jQuery Version**: The test case compares six different versions of jQuery: 1.7.1, 1.11.3, 2.2.4, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, and 3.6.0.
2. **Execution Speed**: The benchmark measures the execution speed of each jQuery version in terms of **Executions Per Second (EPS)**.

Pros of using this approach:

* It allows developers to compare the performance of different jQuery versions on a specific browser and platform.
* This helps identify which version is most suitable for their project, considering factors like execution speed and compatibility.

Cons of using this approach:

* The benchmark only tests a single DOM manipulation scenario, which may not accurately represent real-world use cases.
* The test case does not account for other factors that can impact performance, such as browser-specific optimizations or additional libraries used in the project.

Other considerations:

* **Browser-specific optimizations**: Chrome's version 113 may have introduced some new optimizations or features that could affect the benchmark results. It's essential to consider whether these changes might skew the test results.
* **Library interactions**: The benchmark only tests jQuery itself, ignoring potential interactions with other libraries or frameworks used in the project. This might lead to inaccurate performance estimates.

Now that I've taken a deep breath, let me summarize:

The provided benchmark definition json represents a test case that compares the performance of different versions of jQuery on a Windows 10 desktop with Chrome 113 as the browser. While this approach provides valuable insights into execution speed, it has limitations and should be considered in conjunction with other factors when making decisions about which library to use in your project.

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/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 113 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Test jQuery 1.7.1	54179.2 Ops/sec
Test jQuery 1.11.3	49649.5 Ops/sec
Test jQuery 1.12.4	48315.6 Ops/sec
Test jQuery 2.2.4	49525.4 Ops/sec
Test jQuery 3.3.1	48921.1 Ops/sec
Test jQuery 3.4.1	49140.8 Ops/sec
Test jQuery 3.6.0	49595.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery versions Mehman2 (version: 0)

benchmark different versions of jquery

Comparing performance of: Test jQuery 1.7.1 vs Test jQuery 1.11.3 vs Test jQuery 1.12.4 vs Test jQuery 2.2.4 vs Test jQuery 3.3.1 vs Test jQuery 3.4.1 vs Test jQuery 3.6.0

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Test jQuery 1.7.1

Test jQuery 1.11.3

Test jQuery 1.12.4

Test jQuery 2.2.4

Test jQuery 3.3.1

Test jQuery 3.4.1

Test jQuery 3.6.0

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):