Benchmark: next-element - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.1.1.min.js"></script>
<div id="first"></div>
<div id="second"></div>

Tests:

DOM API
var cycle = document.getElementById('first'); var result = cycle.nextElementSibling;
jQuery
var $cycle = $('#first'); var $result = $cycle.next();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
DOM API
jQuery

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases for measuring the performance difference between using the DOM API (specifically, `nextElementSibling`) versus jQuery to access the next element in a HTML document structure.

In this benchmark:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: The script preparation code is null, meaning no additional JavaScript code needs to be executed before running the tests.
2. **HTML Preparation Code**: The provided HTML code sets up two `<div>` elements with IDs "first" and "second". These will serve as the targets for the next element access operations.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches:

1. **DOM API (using `nextElementSibling`)**: This approach uses the DOM API's `nextElementSibling` method to navigate from an element to its next sibling.
2. **jQuery**: This approach utilizes jQuery's `next()` method, which is a wrapper around the DOM API's `nextElementSibling` method.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **DOM API (using `nextElementSibling`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Low overhead, as it only requires access to the element's sibling list.
		+ Can be more efficient for smaller datasets or when working with elements that have a specific structure.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual navigation and manipulation of the DOM tree, which can lead to performance issues if not optimized properly.
2. **jQuery**
	* Pros:
		+ Abstracts away the complexity of DOM manipulation, allowing developers to focus on content rather than layout.
		+ Can be more convenient for complex layouts or when working with multiple elements.
	* Cons:
		+ Introduces an additional overhead due to the abstraction layer and the need to execute jQuery-specific code.
		+ May not perform as well as a direct DOM API approach for very large datasets.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, **jQuery** is used. jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that provides a convenient way to interact with HTML documents. Its `next()` method wraps around the DOM API's `nextElementSibling` method, allowing developers to easily navigate between elements.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of two established approaches for accessing next elements.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to modify this benchmark to include other options, you could explore alternative libraries or frameworks that provide similar functionality to jQuery, such as:

1. **Lodash**: A utility library that offers various methods for working with arrays and objects, including `next()`.
2. **Zepto**: Another lightweight JavaScript library that provides a subset of jQuery's functionality.
3. **Vanilla DOM manipulation**: Directly manipulating the DOM using native JavaScript methods, such as `nextElementSibling`, without relying on an external library.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would introduce their own trade-offs and potential performance implications, which would be worth considering when evaluating their suitability for your specific use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 53 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
DOM API	3287535.2 Ops/sec
jQuery	463776.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

next-element (version: 0)

DOM-Api vs jQUery

Comparing performance of: DOM API vs jQuery

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

DOM API

jQuery

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):