Benchmark: jQuery 3.3.1 selector vs jQuery 1.9.0 vs document.querySelector vs document.getElementById

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  var jq331 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.9.0/jquery.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  var jq190 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div id="testElement"></div>

Tests:

jQuery 3.3.1
var el = jq331("#testElement")[0]; var className = el.className;
jQuery 1.9.0
var el = jq190("#testElement")[0]; var className = el.className;
Vanilla JS querySelector
var el = document.querySelector('#testElement'); var className = el.className;
Vanilla JS getElementById
var el = document.getElementById('testElement'); var className = el.className;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery 3.3.1
jQuery 1.9.0
Vanilla JS querySelector
Vanilla JS getElementById

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:101.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/101.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 101 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery 3.3.1	3863421.8 Ops/sec
jQuery 1.9.0	2740617.5 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS querySelector	2723725.2 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS getElementById	4047575.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark test and explain what each option is tested, along with their pros and cons.

**The Test:**

The test compares the performance of different JavaScript libraries and methods for querying HTML elements:

1. **jQuery 3.3.1**: The first version of jQuery, released in 2013.
2. **jQuery 1.9.0**: An older version of jQuery, released in 2012.
3. **Vanilla JS querySelector**: Using the `querySelector` method to select elements without any library.
4. **Vanilla JS getElementById**: Using the `getElementById` method to select elements without any library.

**Options Compared:**

* jQuery 3.3.1 vs jQuery 1.9.0: These two versions of jQuery have different syntax, DOM manipulation capabilities, and optimization techniques.
* Vanilla JS querySelector vs Vanilla JS getElementById: These two methods are part of the DOM API, but they differ in their approach to selecting elements.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **jQuery**: Pros:
	+ Simpler syntax for HTML element selection
	+ Built-in event handling and manipulation capabilities
	+ Wide adoption and extensive community support
	Cons:
	+ Larger size due to additional library features
	+ Potential performance overhead due to added dependencies
* **jQuery 1.9.0 vs jQuery 3.3.1**: The newer version has improved performance, syntax, and DOM manipulation capabilities.
* **Vanilla JS querySelector**:
	+ Pros: Lightweight, efficient, and modern syntax
	+ Cons: May require more code and planning for complex queries
* **Vanilla JS getElementById**:
	+ Pros: Simple, fast, and widely supported
	+ Cons: Only suitable for selecting elements by ID, not classes or other attributes

**Library Usage (jQuery):**

In the test, jQuery is used in two versions: 3.3.1 and 1.9.0. The `$.noConflict(true)` method is used to reset the `$` alias and avoid conflicts with other libraries.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax (None)**:

The test code does not include any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, arrow functions, or Promises.

**Other Alternatives:**

* **Lodash**: A utility library that provides a functional programming style for DOM manipulation and selection.
* **React**: A popular library for building user interfaces, which also includes DOM manipulation capabilities.
* **Vanilla CSS**: Using only CSS selectors to select elements without JavaScript libraries.

Keep in mind that the test is focused on comparing performance between different JavaScript libraries and methods, so alternatives like Lodash or React are not directly comparable.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery 3.3.1 selector vs jQuery 1.9.0 vs document.querySelector vs document.getElementById (version: 0)

Comparing speed of jQuery 3.3.1 selector, jQuery 1.9.0, vanilla JS querySelector, and vanilla JS getElementById

Comparing performance of: jQuery 3.3.1 vs jQuery 1.9.0 vs Vanilla JS querySelector vs Vanilla JS getElementById

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery 3.3.1

jQuery 1.9.0

Vanilla JS querySelector

Vanilla JS getElementById

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):