Benchmark: MarkTest11 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

<form>
  <input type="text">Hi</input>
  <textarea>This is text area</textarea>
  <span id="testid"></span>
</form>

Script Preparation code:

var elem = document.getElementById("testid");

Tests:

JQ sibinglings
var txt = $(elem).siblings("textarea").val();
Vanilla
for (sibling = elem.parentNode.firstChild; sibling; sibling = sibling.nextSibling) { if (sibling.nodeName==="TEXTAREA") { var txt = sibling.value; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JQ sibinglings
Vanilla

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and what the pros and cons of each approach are.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two different approaches to access the value of a `textarea` element within an HTML form. The test cases use either jQuery or vanilla JavaScript to achieve this goal.

**Test Case 1: jQuery Siblings**

* Benchmark Definition: `var txt = $(elem).siblings("textarea").val();`
* Purpose: This test case measures the performance of using jQuery's `siblings()` method to find the nearest `textarea` element and then accessing its value.
* Pros:
	+ Easy to read and maintain, as it leverages a popular JavaScript library (jQuery) with a well-documented API.
	+ Fast execution time, thanks to jQuery's optimized implementation under the hood.
* Cons:
	+ Additional dependency on the jQuery library, which may introduce latency due to its size and complexity.
	+ May not be suitable for projects that avoid using external libraries.

**Test Case 2: Vanilla JavaScript**

* Benchmark Definition: `for (sibling = elem.parentNode.firstChild; sibling; sibling = sibling.nextSibling) { ... }`
* Purpose: This test case measures the performance of using a traditional vanilla JavaScript loop to find and access the value of the nearest `textarea` element.
* Pros:
	+ No additional dependency on external libraries, reducing latency and dependencies.
	+ Allows for more control over the implementation and optimization.
* Cons:
	+ More verbose and complex code compared to the jQuery approach.
	+ May require more manual optimization efforts.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that provides a convenient and efficient way to manipulate the DOM. In this benchmark, jQuery's `siblings()` method is used to find the nearest `textarea` element and then access its value. The `$(elem)` notation is shorthand for creating a new jQuery object from the `elem` element.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

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

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

* Using the `querySelector()` method instead of `siblings()`, which might be more efficient.
* Leveraging CSS selectors to target the `textarea` element directly, eliminating the need for DOM manipulation altogether.
* Employing template literals or other string interpolation methods to construct a string representing the textarea's value.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity and dependencies.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/68.0.3440.106 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 68 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JQ sibinglings	339616.7 Ops/sec
Vanilla	171220.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

MarkTest11 (version: 0)

NA

Comparing performance of: JQ sibinglings vs Vanilla

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

JQ sibinglings

Vanilla

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):