Benchmark: jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById vs Document.querySelector (fix)

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="cadre_slider_decoration" class="twentytwenty-container">
								<img src="https://www.w3schools.com/css/trolltunga.jpg" id="image_slider_decoration_before" class="image_slider_decoration twentytwenty-before" style="clip: rect(0px 225.5px 301px 0px);">
								<img src="https://www.w3schools.com/css/trolltunga.jpg" id="image_slider_decoration_after" class="image_slider_decoration twentytwenty-after">
							<div class="twentytwenty-overlay"><div class="twentytwenty-before-label"></div><div class="twentytwenty-after-label"></div></div><div class="twentytwenty-handle" style="left: 225.5px;"><span class="twentytwenty-left-arrow"></span><span class="twentytwenty-right-arrow"></span></div></div>

Tests:

jQuery
var sliderW; for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++){ sliderW = $("#image_slider_decoration_after"); }
getElementById
var sliderW; for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++){ sliderW = document.getElementById("image_slider_decoration_after") }
querySelector
var sliderW; for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++){ sliderW = document.querySelector("#image_slider_decoration_after") }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
getElementById
querySelector

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents three individual test cases that compare the performance of different approaches to retrieve an HTML element by its ID:

1. jQuery (`$(#image_slider_decoration_after)`)
2. Vanilla JavaScript using `document.getElementById` (`document.getElementById("image_slider_deoration_after")`)
3. Vanilla JavaScript using `document.querySelector` (`document.querySelector("#image_slider_decoration_after")`)

**Options compared**

The three test cases compare the performance of retrieving an HTML element by its ID using:

* jQuery: a popular JavaScript library that provides a simplified way to access and manipulate HTML elements.
* Vanilla JavaScript: the standard JavaScript API for accessing and manipulating HTML elements.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* **jQuery**:
	+ Pros:
		- Simplified syntax, making it easier to write code.
		- Provides a robust set of methods for working with HTML elements.
		- Can improve performance due to its optimized DOM manipulation algorithms.
	+ Cons:
		- Adds an external dependency (the jQuery library) that needs to be loaded before use.
		- May not be suitable for very large or complex applications.
* **Vanilla JavaScript (document.getElementById)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Does not require loading any external libraries.
		- Can be used in all web browsers, regardless of their JavaScript engine.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires a longer syntax and more manual DOM manipulation.
		- May not provide the same level of performance as jQuery's optimized algorithms.
* **Vanilla JavaScript (document.querySelector)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Provides a flexible query syntax that can be used to select elements using various selectors (e.g., ID, class, tag name).
		- Can be faster than `document.getElementById` for complex selection scenarios.
	+ Cons:
		- May require more manual DOM manipulation and error handling.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies the way you can interact with HTML elements. It provides a robust set of methods for working with DOM elements, including:

* `$(selector)`: selects elements based on a CSS selector.
* `$().each()`: iterates over a collection of elements.

In the context of this benchmark, jQuery is used to retrieve the element by its ID using the syntax `$("#image_slider_decoration_after")`.

**Special JS feature: None**

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

**Benchmark Preparation Code and HTML**

The provided JSON includes a simple HTML structure with an image element that has an `id` attribute set to `"image_slider_decoration_after"`. The test cases create a variable `sliderW` and assign the result of each approach to this variable within a loop (100,000 times) using the syntax specified in the `Benchmark Definition`.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches or tools to measure JavaScript performance, consider the following options:

* **Benchmarking libraries**: Libraries like Benchmark.js, Microbenchmark.js, or js-perf allow you to write and run benchmarks in your own projects.
* **WebAssembly (WASM)**: WebAssembly is a binary format that can be used for building fast and efficient JavaScript applications. You can use tools like Wasmer or Emscripten to compile your code into WASM.
* **Modern JavaScript engines**: Newer versions of JavaScript engines, such as SpiderMonkey in Firefox or V8 in Chrome, provide improved performance and features.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific needs, project requirements, and personal preferences.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.81 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 69 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery	1.1 Ops/sec
getElementById	3.4 Ops/sec
querySelector	1.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById vs Document.querySelector (fix) (version: 0)

Comparing speed of getting element by id with jQuery vs Vanilla JS (fix)

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs getElementById vs querySelector

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

getElementById

querySelector

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):