Benchmark: jQuery by className vs Document.getElementsByClassName

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.0.min.js"></script>
<div id="testElement"></div>

Tests:

jQuery
var el = $(".testElement")[0]; var className = el.className;
Vanilla JS
var el = document.getElementsByClassName('testElement'); var className = el.className;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
Vanilla JS

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark compares the speed of retrieving an element with the class name "testElement" using jQuery versus vanilla JavaScript's `document.getElementsByClassName()` method.

**Options Compared:**

* **jQuery:**  The code uses `$(\".testElement\")[0]` to select the element. This leverages jQuery's selector engine, which is optimized for DOM manipulation.
* **Vanilla JavaScript:** The code uses `document.getElementsByClassName('testElement')` directly. This utilizes the built-in browser functionality for selecting elements by class name.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **jQuery:** 
    * **Pros:** Often considered more concise and readable, especially for complex DOM manipulations. Provides a powerful set of methods beyond basic element selection.
    * **Cons:** Adds an extra dependency to your project (the jQuery library).  Can potentially introduce performance overhead due to the abstraction layer.

* **Vanilla JavaScript:**
    * **Pros:** No external dependencies, leading to smaller file sizes and faster initial load times. 
    * **Cons:** Can be more verbose for complex tasks compared to jQuery. May require manual implementation of certain features provided by jQuery.

**Library:**

* **jQuery:** A popular JavaScript library designed to simplify DOM manipulation, event handling, animation, and AJAX interactions.

**Test Explanation:**

The benchmark measures the time it takes to retrieve a single element with the class "testElement" using both methods. The results indicate that vanilla JavaScript is significantly faster in this particular scenario.

**Other Alternatives:**

* **CSS Selectors:** While not directly tested here, using CSS selectors with `document.querySelector()` or `document.querySelectorAll()` can often be a more efficient approach for selecting specific elements based on their attributes or relationships.

Let me know if you have any more questions about this benchmark or JavaScript performance in general!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:132.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/132.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 132 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery	0.0 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS	4032639.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery by className vs Document.getElementsByClassName (version: 0)

Comparing speed of getting element by class name with jQuery vs Vanilla JS

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs Vanilla JS

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

Vanilla JS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated 29 days ago):