Benchmark: testtestfromage42klsdgdfg

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
<div id='test'></div>

Tests:

Simple
$('#test') $('#test')
composition
var a = '#test' $(a)
rerecup
var $test = $('#test') $($test)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Simple
composition
rerecup

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and its test cases, explaining what's being tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking framework. The `Name`, `Description`, `Script Preparation Code`, and `Html Preparation Code` fields are not used in this specific benchmark definition. Instead, it focuses on defining multiple test cases.

**Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **Simple**: `$('#test')\r\n$('#test')`
2. **Composition**: `var a = '#test'\r\n$(a)`
3. **Rerecup**: `var $test = $('#test')\r\n$($test)`

These test cases measure the performance of different approaches to selecting and manipulating an HTML element.

**What's being tested?**

In essence, these test cases compare the following scenarios:

* Selecting an element using jQuery (`$('#test')`)
* Assigning a value to a variable and then passing it to the `$()` function ( Composition)
* Assigning a reference to an element to a variable and then calling the `$()` function on that variable ( Rerecup)

**Options compared**

The options being compared are:

* Using the `$('#test')` syntax directly
* Storing the result of `$('#test')` in a variable (`a`) and passing it to `$()`
* Assigning the reference to an element to a variable (`$test`) and then calling `$()` on that variable

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each option:

1. **Simple**: This is the most straightforward approach, using the `$('#test')` syntax directly.
	* Pros: Easy to read and write, no unnecessary variables or function calls.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the need for jQuery to execute the selector.
2. **Composition**: Storing the result in a variable (`a`) and passing it to `$()`.
	* Pros: Can potentially avoid some overhead from the `$('#test')` syntax, as the variable is only created once.
	* Cons: Adds unnecessary variables and function calls, which may increase complexity and slow down execution.
3. **Rerecup**: Assigning the reference to an element to a variable (`$test`) and then calling `$()` on that variable.
	* Pros: Similar to Composition, potentially avoiding some overhead by reusing the `#test` element reference.
	* Cons: Still introduces unnecessary variables and function calls.

**Other considerations**

* The benchmark uses jQuery 3.3.1, which is an older version of the library. More recent versions might have optimized performance improvements or changed behavior that affects these test cases.
* The `ExecutionsPerSecond` metric indicates the number of executions performed per second by each browser, with higher values indicating better performance.

**Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark, you could consider alternative approaches, such as:

* Using a modern JavaScript library like React or Angular, which might have optimized rendering and DOM manipulation performance.
* Implementing custom render functions that take advantage of the underlying DOM tree structure.
* Using WebAssembly or other low-level technologies for improved performance.

However, these alternatives would likely require significant changes to the benchmark definition and implementation, and might not be suitable for a simple microbenchmark like this one.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Simple	1553774.0 Ops/sec
composition	3183086.2 Ops/sec
rerecup	1678762.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testtestfromage42klsdgdfg (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Simple vs composition vs rerecup

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Simple

composition

rerecup

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):