Benchmark: jQuery 3.3.1 selector vs document.querySelectorAll

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
<div class="a">
  <div class="b">
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
    	<div class="d"></div>
    <div class="c">
  </div>
</div>

Tests:

Vanilla JS
var el = document.querySelectorAll('.d');
JQuery 3.3.1
var el = $('.d')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Vanilla JS
JQuery 3.3.1

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to select elements with a class `d`:

1. **Vanilla JS**: Using the `querySelectorAll` method from the Document Object Model (DOM).
2. **jQuery 3.3.1**: Using the `$` function, which is a shortcut for jQuery's DOM manipulation API.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code includes a reference to the jQuery library:
```html
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
```
This suggests that the benchmark is using an external jQuery library, rather than including it as a module or using a bundler.

**Individual Test Cases**

The individual test cases are:

1. **Vanilla JS**: The benchmark definition uses the `querySelectorAll` method to select elements with the class `d`. This is a standard DOM API function that returns a NodeList of matching elements.
2. **jQuery 3.3.1**: The benchmark definition uses the `$` function to select elements with the class `d`. This is a shortcut for jQuery's DOM manipulation API, which allows for more concise and expressive selection syntax.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Vanilla JS (`querySelectorAll`)**:
	+ Pros: Lightweight, widely supported, and easy to use.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than jQuery due to the overhead of creating a new DOM query object.
* **jQuery 3.3.1` ($`)**:
	+ Pros: More concise and expressive selection syntax, often faster than vanilla JS due to caching and optimization.
	+ Cons: Additional library dependency, can be heavier and more complex.

**Library: jQuery**

The `jQuery 3.3.1` library is a popular JavaScript framework that provides a convenient and flexible way to manipulate the DOM. It includes features like event handling, animations, and Ajax requests, in addition to its DOM manipulation capabilities.

**Special JS feature: No special syntax or features are being tested in this benchmark.**

Other alternatives for selecting elements with a class include:

* **`document.querySelector('.d')`**: A modern alternative to `querySelectorAll`, which is more concise but still widely supported.
* **`document.querySelectorAll('.d')`**: The standard DOM API function, which is lightweight and widely supported.

Keep in mind that the choice of selection method ultimately depends on the specific requirements of your project and personal preference.

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/69.0.3497.92 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 69 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Vanilla JS	454046.3 Ops/sec
JQuery 3.3.1	148079.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery 3.3.1 selector vs document.querySelectorAll (version: 0)

Comparing speed of jQuery 3.3.1 selector and vanilla JS querySelectorAll

Comparing performance of: Vanilla JS vs JQuery 3.3.1

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Vanilla JS

JQuery 3.3.1

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):