Benchmark: jQuery $(selector, context) VS $(context).find(selector) VS Vanilla querySelector

HTML Preparation code:

<form class="test-form">
    <input class="test-element" />
</form>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.7.1/jquery.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var $context = $('.test-form');
var context = document.querySelector('.test-form');

Tests:

$(selector, $context)
$('.test-element', $context);
$(selector).find(selector)
$('.test-form').find('.test-element');
$context.find(selector)
$context.find('.test-element');
Vanilla querySelector
context.querySelector('.test-element');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
$(selector, $context)
$(selector).find(selector)
$context.find(selector)
Vanilla querySelector

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 11 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three approaches for selecting elements in a web page:

1. **jQuery**: A popular JavaScript library that provides a simplified way to interact with the Document Object Model (DOM).
2. **Vanilla querySelector**: The native JavaScript method for selecting elements, which is part of the W3C specification.
3. **Vanilla querySelector with context**: Similar to `querySelector`, but takes an additional `context` parameter to narrow down the search.

**Options Comparison**

The three options are compared in terms of:

* Performance: How many executions per second can each option achieve on a given hardware setup (measured by `ExecutionsPerSecond`).
* Accuracy: Are the results accurate, or do they exhibit bugs or inconsistencies?

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons for each approach:

* **jQuery**: Pros:
	+ Well-maintained and widely supported.
	+ Provides a convenient way to select elements, especially in older browsers.
Cons:
	+ Adds unnecessary overhead due to its own DOM manipulation library.
	+ Can be slower than native methods when optimized.
* **Vanilla querySelector**:
	+ Native implementation, so minimal overhead.
	+ Generally faster and more efficient than jQuery's approach.
Cons:
	+ May not work in older browsers that don't support W3C standards.
	+ Requires additional syntax for context-based searches.
* **Vanilla querySelector with context**:
	+ Combines the benefits of native querySelector with the convenience of a contextual search.
Pros:
	+ More flexible than jQuery's approach, as it allows searching within a specific context.
Cons:
	+ May incur slightly higher overhead due to the additional parameter.

**Library and Syntax**

* **jQuery**: A widely used JavaScript library that provides an easy-to-use API for DOM manipulation. Its `$(selector, context)` syntax is convenient but may be slower than native methods.
* **Vanilla querySelector**: The native JavaScript method for selecting elements, which is part of the W3C specification. Its syntax is more verbose than jQuery's, requiring additional parameters like `context`.

**Special JS Features and Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to MeasureThat.net or want to explore other benchmarking tools:

* **Benchpress**: A popular open-source benchmarking tool specifically designed for JavaScript microbenchmarks.
* **jsperf**: Another well-known online benchmarking platform, although it's been deprecated and may not be as actively maintained as MeasureThat.net.

Keep in mind that the results of these benchmarks can vary depending on the specific hardware, software, and browser versions used.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.4.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
$(selector, $context)	1664996.0 Ops/sec
$(selector).find(selector)	1147342.0 Ops/sec
$context.find(selector)	1844793.0 Ops/sec
Vanilla querySelector	6818135.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery $(selector, context) VS $(context).find(selector) VS Vanilla querySelector (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: $(selector, $context) vs $(selector).find(selector) vs $context.find(selector) vs Vanilla querySelector

Created: 5 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

$(selector, $context)

$(selector).find(selector)

$context.find(selector)

Vanilla querySelector

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 11 days ago):