Benchmark: jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById 1.12.4

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.12.4.min.js"></script>
<div id="testElement"></div>

Tests:

jQuery
var el = $("#testElement")[0]; var className = el.className;
Vanilla JS
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
Vanilla JS

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/69.0.3497.100 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 69 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery	709700.0 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS	2409007.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark test and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the speed of retrieving an HTML element by its ID using two approaches: jQuery (a JavaScript library) and Vanilla JS (JavaScript without any libraries).

In the first case, the benchmark uses jQuery to select the element with the ID "testElement" and then retrieve the `className` property. In the second case, it uses Vanilla JS to achieve the same result directly.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **jQuery**: A popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation, event handling, and other tasks.
2. **Vanilla JS**: Plain JavaScript without any libraries, which can be more efficient but also requires more manual effort.

**Pros and Cons**

**jQuery:**

Pros:

* Faster execution time due to optimized DOM manipulation
* Easier to use, especially for those familiar with its API

Cons:

* Adds additional overhead in terms of library size and complexity
* May introduce dependencies and security vulnerabilities if not used carefully

**Vanilla JS:**

Pros:

* More efficient and lightweight, as it only uses native JavaScript capabilities
* No dependencies or potential security risks

Cons:

* Requires more manual effort to achieve the same result
* Can be slower due to the need for explicit DOM manipulation

**Library in question (jQuery)**

jQuery is a widely used JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation and other tasks. In this benchmark, jQuery is used to select the element by ID and then retrieve its `className` property.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The test focuses on comparing two basic approaches to achieving a common goal.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative libraries or methods, here are a few options:

* **Zepto**: A lightweight alternative to jQuery that provides similar functionality.
* **DocumentFragment**: A native JavaScript method that can be used instead of jQuery's `$(selector)` syntax.
* **QuerySelector**: A modern web standard (introduced in CSS3) that allows for more efficient and flexible DOM querying.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not offer the same level of convenience as jQuery, but they can provide a more lightweight or efficient solution depending on your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById 1.12.4 (version: 0)

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

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs Vanilla JS

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

Vanilla JS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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