Benchmark: New css test - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<div class="hello" id="hello" data-hello="zha-zbto">Hello</div>

Tests:

10
document.querySelector('[data-hello]');
11
document.querySelector('[data-hello$="zbto"]');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
10
11

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing JavaScript microbenchmarks, specifically focusing on two test cases:

1. `document.querySelector('[data-hello]')`
2. `document.querySelector('[data-hello$=\"zbto\"]')`

These test cases aim to measure the performance of JavaScript code that uses CSS selectors.

**Options compared**

Two main approaches are being compared:

1. **Exact matching**: The first test case (`[data-hello]`) uses exact matching, where the selector matches a string literal containing `data-hello`.
2. **Attribute matching with wildcards**: The second test case (`[data-hello$=\"zbto\"]`) uses attribute matching with wildcards, where the selector matches an attribute named `data-hello` that contains the value `zbto`.

**Pros and cons**

1. **Exact matching**:
	* Pros: Simple, efficient, and less prone to false positives.
	* Cons: May be slower due to string lookup in the DOM tree.
2. **Attribute matching with wildcards**:
	* Pros: Can handle more complex cases, like attribute values containing special characters or whitespace.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the use of regular expressions under the hood.

In general, exact matching is usually preferred for performance-critical code, as it's simpler and less prone to false positives. However, attribute matching with wildcards can provide more flexibility and accuracy in certain scenarios.

**Library usage**

Both test cases rely on the `document.querySelector` method from the DOM API. This library provides a way to search for elements within an HTML document based on CSS selectors.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax**

In this benchmark, no special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested. The code is straightforward and uses only standard ECMAScript syntax.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to test other approaches or optimizations, here are some alternatives:

1. **Using a different query method**: Instead of `document.querySelector`, you could use `document.querySelectorAll` to see if it improves performance.
2. **Optimizing the CSS selector**: You could try optimizing the CSS selectors used in the benchmark code by using techniques like attribute precalculation, caching, or lazy evaluation.
3. **Using a different DOM traversal method**: If you want to explore other DOM traversal methods, such as `querySelectorAll` with a filter function, you can modify the benchmark code accordingly.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require significant changes to the benchmark code and may not provide comparable results to the original test cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 YaBrowser/24.7.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Yandex Browser 24 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
10	2816827.0 Ops/sec
11	2715342.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

New css test (version: 0)

test

Comparing performance of: 10 vs 11

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

10

11

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):