Benchmark: reparsing jQuery speed test

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Without caching
$('div div div div').html('hello'); $('div div div div').html('hello'); $('div div div div').html('hello'); $('div div div div').html('hello'); $('div div div div').html('hello'); $('div div div div').html('hello');
with caching
const div = $('div div div div'); div.html('hello'); div.html('hello'); div.html('hello'); div.html('hello'); div.html('hello'); div.html('hello');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Without caching
with caching

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, which aims to compare the performance of two approaches: re-executing the same jQuery method without caching and using caching.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests the execution speed of jQuery methods with and without caching. Specifically:

* Without caching: The benchmark defines five consecutive calls to `div.html('hello')`, where a variable `div` is created by selecting an element on the page.
* With caching: The benchmark also defines five consecutive calls to `div.html('hello')`, but this time, the variable `div` is assigned only once before the loops.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Without caching**: This approach requires re-executing the jQuery method for each iteration of the loop, resulting in more DOM mutations and potentially slower performance.
2. **With caching**: This approach stores the result of the first execution in a variable `div` and uses it across subsequent iterations, reducing the number of DOM mutations and potentially improving performance.

**Pros and Cons**

* Without caching:
	+ Pros: Simple to implement and understand.
	+ Cons: More DOM mutations can lead to slower performance due to repeated DOM updates.
* With caching:
	+ Pros: Reduces DOM mutations, which can improve performance.
	+ Cons: Requires storing the result of the first execution in a variable, which may not be desirable for all use cases.

**Library and its purpose**

In both test cases, jQuery is used as the library. The `$.html()` method is used to set the HTML content of an element.

**Special JS feature or syntax (none)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmark, you could also test other approaches, such as:

* Using a different library or implementation, like vanilla JavaScript or a alternative DOM library.
* Testing the performance of multiple caching mechanisms (e.g., using a cache object or storing results in an array).
* Comparing the performance of synchronous and asynchronous execution.

Keep in mind that the specific approach and test case will depend on the goals and requirements of your benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 67 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Without caching	13681.2 Ops/sec
with caching	26269.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

reparsing jQuery speed test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Without caching vs with caching

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Without caching

with caching

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):