Benchmark: teste3 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<div><div class="teste" id="teste1">asfasdfafd</div></div>

Tests:

teste querySelectorAll
document.querySelectorAll('.teste')
teste getElementById
document.getElementById('teste1');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
teste querySelectorAll
teste getElementById

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
teste querySelectorAll	1314096.9 Ops/sec
teste getElementById	3983892.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and some pros/cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that describes the test case. In this case, there are two test cases:

1. `document.querySelectorAll('.teste')`
2. `document.getElementById('teste1');`

These test cases are designed to measure the performance of JavaScript code that interacts with the DOM (Document Object Model).

**Test Cases:**

The two test cases are identical in terms of the JavaScript code being executed, but they differ in how the DOM is accessed.

**Option 1: `document.querySelectorAll('.teste')`**

This option uses the `querySelectorAll()` method to select all elements with the class `teste`. This method returns a NodeList, which is an array-like object that contains references to the matched elements.

**Pros:**

* More flexible and efficient than using `getElementById()`, as it can match multiple elements at once.
* Can be faster, especially when searching for elements with dynamic classes or IDs.

**Cons:**

* Returns a NodeList, which may require additional processing to iterate over the results.
* May have performance overhead due to the need to create and manipulate a new array-like object.

**Option 2: `document.getElementById('teste1');`**

This option uses the `getElementById()` method to retrieve an element by its ID. This method returns a single DOM element, which is more efficient than using `querySelectorAll()`, but less flexible.

**Pros:**

* Faster and more lightweight than using `querySelectorAll()`, as it only retrieves a single element.
* Returns a DOM element, which can be accessed directly without additional processing.

**Cons:**

* Less flexible, as it can only retrieve one element at a time.
* May not be suitable for scenarios where multiple elements need to be retrieved or matched.

**Library and Purpose:**

In the provided test case, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, it's worth noting that `querySelectorAll()` and `getElementById()` are built-in DOM methods in JavaScript, so no external libraries are required.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

None of the provided code uses any special JavaScript features or syntax. It only relies on basic DOM interactions.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you need to measure the performance of other DOM-related methods, such as:

* `getElementsByTagName()`: This method returns an HTMLCollection, which is an array-like object that contains references to all elements with a given tag name.
* `querySelector()` and `querySelectorAll()` with CSS selectors: These methods can be used to select elements based on their class, ID, attribute value, or other CSS selector criteria.

You can consider adding additional test cases to measure the performance of these alternative approaches.

Related benchmarks:

teste3 (version: 0)

teste3

Comparing performance of: teste querySelectorAll vs teste getElementById

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

teste querySelectorAll

teste getElementById

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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