Benchmark: querySelectorAll vs JQuery

querySelectorAll vs JQuery (version: 2)

Compares the performance of querySelectorAll against JQuery for selecting elements. For class selector, getElementsByClassName is the best. For element selector, getElementsByTagName is the best.

Comparing performance of: querySelectorAll by Attribute vs jQuery selector by Attribute vs querySelectorAll by Class vs jQuery selector by Class vs querySelectorAll by Element vs jQuery selector by Element

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
<content id="demo">Hello World!</content>

AخA
 
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
<content id="demo">Hello World!</content>

Script Preparation code:

let components = '';
for (let i=0; i<10000; i+=1) {
    components += '<div class="component" data-component="component' + i + '">Content ' + i + '</div>'
}
document.getElementById("demo").innerHTML = components;

 
let components = '';for (let i=0; i<10000; i+=1) {    components += '<div class="component" data-component="component' + i + '">Content ' + i + '</div>'}document.getElementById("demo").innerHTML = components;

Tests:

querySelectorAll by Attribute
let components = document.querySelectorAll('[data-component]');
let components = document.querySelectorAll('[data-component]');
jQuery selector by Attribute
let components = $('[data-component]');
let components = $('[data-component]');
querySelectorAll by Class
let components = document.querySelectorAll('.component');
let components = document.querySelectorAll('.component');
jQuery selector by Class
let components = $('.component');
let components = $('.component');
querySelectorAll by Element
let components = document.querySelectorAll('div');
let components = document.querySelectorAll('div');
jQuery selector by Element
let components = $('div');
let components = $('div');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
querySelectorAll by Attribute
jQuery selector by Attribute
querySelectorAll by Class
jQuery selector by Class
querySelectorAll by Element
jQuery selector by Element

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/128.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
querySelectorAll by Attribute	2768.6 Ops/sec
jQuery selector by Attribute	1615.5 Ops/sec
querySelectorAll by Class	3439.4 Ops/sec
jQuery selector by Class	4527.1 Ops/sec
querySelectorAll by Element	2776.2 Ops/sec
jQuery selector by Element	2577.7 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

I'll provide an explanation of the benchmark, its options, pros and cons, library usage, special JS features or syntax, and alternatives.

Benchmark Overview

The provided benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: querySelectorAll (native JavaScript) and jQuery selectors ($()). The test creates a large HTML document with 10,000 elements and tests the performance of both approaches in selecting different types of elements (by attribute, class, and element).

Options Compared

Native querySelectorAll: This approach uses the native JavaScript method to select elements based on a CSS selector.
jQuery selectors ($()): This approach uses jQuery's selector engine to select elements.

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

Native querySelectorAll:

Pros:

Native implementation, which is generally faster than third-party libraries.
More control over the selection process.

Cons:

Requires a CSS-like syntax for selectors, which can be complex.
Limited support for certain advanced CSS features (e.g., pseudo-classes).

jQuery selectors ($())

Pros:

Easier to read and write CSS-like selectors.
Supports more advanced CSS features (e.g., pseudo-classes).
More efficient in some cases due to jQuery's internal optimizations.

Cons:

Third-party library, which adds overhead and may not be compatible with all browsers.
Less control over the selection process.

Library Usage

In this benchmark, jQuery is used as the external library. The script tag includes the jQuery library, and the $() function is used to select elements.

Special JS Features or Syntax

None mentioned in this benchmark.

Other Considerations

When choosing between native querySelectorAll and jQuery selectors, consider the trade-off between ease of use (jQuery) and performance (native implementation). If you need more control over the selection process, native querySelectorAll might be a better choice. However, if readability and ease of use are more important, jQuery selectors could be a better option.

Alternatives

Other alternatives to compare include:

Sizzle: Another popular CSS selector engine that can be used in place of jQuery.
CSSOM: The Document Object Model (DOM) API provides a native way to select elements using CSS selectors.
QuerySelector API: A newer JavaScript API for selecting elements based on CSS selectors.

These alternatives might offer different performance profiles, ease of use, or feature sets compared to native querySelectorAll and jQuery selectors.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll provide an explanation of the benchmark, its options, pros and cons, library usage, special JS features or syntax, and alternatives.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: `querySelectorAll` (native JavaScript) and jQuery selectors (`$()`). The test creates a large HTML document with 10,000 elements and tests the performance of both approaches in selecting different types of elements (by attribute, class, and element).

**Options Compared**

1. **Native `querySelectorAll`**: This approach uses the native JavaScript method to select elements based on a CSS selector.
2. **jQuery selectors (`$()`)**: This approach uses jQuery's selector engine to select elements.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Native `querySelectorAll`**:

Pros:

* Native implementation, which is generally faster than third-party libraries.
* More control over the selection process.

Cons:

* Requires a CSS-like syntax for selectors, which can be complex.
* Limited support for certain advanced CSS features (e.g., pseudo-classes).

**jQuery selectors (`$()`)**

Pros:

* Easier to read and write CSS-like selectors.
* Supports more advanced CSS features (e.g., pseudo-classes).
* More efficient in some cases due to jQuery's internal optimizations.

Cons:

* Third-party library, which adds overhead and may not be compatible with all browsers.
* Less control over the selection process.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used as the external library. The `script` tag includes the jQuery library, and the `$()` function is used to select elements.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between native `querySelectorAll` and jQuery selectors, consider the trade-off between ease of use (jQuery) and performance (native implementation). If you need more control over the selection process, native `querySelectorAll` might be a better choice. However, if readability and ease of use are more important, jQuery selectors could be a better option.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to compare include:

1. **Sizzle**: Another popular CSS selector engine that can be used in place of jQuery.
2. **CSSOM**: The Document Object Model (DOM) API provides a native way to select elements using CSS selectors.
3. **QuerySelector API**: A newer JavaScript API for selecting elements based on CSS selectors.

These alternatives might offer different performance profiles, ease of use, or feature sets compared to native `querySelectorAll` and jQuery selectors.

Related benchmarks: