<script
src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.1.0.js"
integrity="sha256-slogkvB1K3VOkzAI8QITxV3VzpOnkeNVsKvtkYLMjfk="
crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
var element = $('<div class="foo"><span><p>Random things to select on</p></span></div>');
element.is('.foo, .baz, .bar, .bang');
element.is('.foo');
element.is('.bar');
element.is('.baz');
element.is('.bang');
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
multi-selector | |
several selectors |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
multi-selector | 2063360.9 Ops/sec |
several selectors | 497065.6 Ops/sec |
Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.
What is being tested?
The benchmark is comparing the performance of two different approaches to selecting elements on an HTML page using jQuery:
.foo, .baz, .bar, .bang
) to check if the element matches any of these classes.element.is('.foo')
, element.is('.bar')
, etc.) to check if the element matches each class individually.Options compared
The two options being compared are:
Pros and cons of each approach:
Library used
The benchmark uses jQuery, a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. In this case, the is()
method is used to check if an element matches a set of CSS selectors.
Special JS feature or syntax
There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different approaches to selecting elements using jQuery.
Other alternatives
If you're interested in exploring alternative libraries or methods for selecting elements, here are some options:
querySelectorAll()
and getElementsByTagName()
to select elements.is()
method for selecting elements.Keep in mind that each approach has its own trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability.