Benchmark: byName vs byId - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="someId" name="someName">Hi! NHNgodo!</div>

Tests:

by Id
var el = document.getElementById("nhngodo"); el.innerText = "Good job!";
byName
var el = document.getElementsByClassName("nhngodo"); el.innerText = "Good job!";

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
by Id
byName

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 performance differences in JavaScript can be a complex task, as it depends on various factors such as browser, device, and system configuration. The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two methods of accessing an HTML element: by its ID (`byId`) versus by its name (`byName`).

**What is tested?**

The test cases measure the execution time of assigning a text value to an HTML element accessed using either `byId` or `byName`. The script preparation code includes a jQuery library, which allows accessing the document elements. In this benchmark, we have two test cases:

1. `byId`: It uses `document.getElementById("nhngodo")` to access the element.
2. `byName`: It uses `document.getElementsByClassName("nhngodo")` to access the element.

**Options compared**

The two options are compared in terms of their execution time, which is measured as the number of executions per second.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **byId**: This method is generally faster because it uses a single call to `getElementById`, which returns an object that can be used directly.
	* Pros:
		+ Faster execution time
		+ More efficient use of resources
	* Cons:
		+ Less flexible, as the element must have an ID attribute
2. **byName**: This method uses `getElementsByClassName` to retrieve a collection of elements that match the specified class name.
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible, as it can be used with classes without an explicit ID attribute
	* Cons:
		+ Slower execution time due to the use of `getElementsByClassName`, which returns a live HTMLCollection
		+ Can be more resource-intensive if multiple elements match the class name

**Library and its purpose**

The test case uses jQuery, which is a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation. In this benchmark, it's used to simplify the process of accessing document elements.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

This benchmark does not rely on any special JavaScript features or syntax. It only utilizes standard JavaScript methods for accessing HTML elements.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to compare `byId` and `byName`, but without using jQuery, you could use:

1. Vanilla JavaScript: Instead of `document.getElementById("nhngodo")`, you would use `document.querySelector("#nhngodo")`.
2. Other libraries or frameworks that provide DOM manipulation capabilities.

Keep in mind that the choice of method depends on your specific requirements and the context in which you're working.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The provided HTML preparation code includes a jQuery library to access the document elements. The script preparation code is empty, as it's not necessary for this benchmark.

Overall, this benchmark provides a good example of how performance differences can arise when using different methods to access HTML elements in JavaScript.

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/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
by Id	0.0 Ops/sec
byName	9350426.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

byName vs byId (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: by Id vs byName

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

by Id

byName

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):