Benchmark: JQuery version speed test 1.7.2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.7.2/jquery.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq1124 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.4/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq224 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq331 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div>
  <ul id="menu">
    <li class="menu-item">1</li>
    <li class="menu-item">2</li>
    <li class="menu-item">3</li>
    <li class="menu-item">4</li>  
  </ul>
</div>

AخA
 
<script src='https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.7.2/jquery.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq1124 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.4/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq224 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq331 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div>
  <ul id="menu">
    <li class="menu-item">1</li>
    <li class="menu-item">2</li>
    <li class="menu-item">3</li>
    <li class="menu-item">4</li>  
  </ul>
</div>

Script Preparation code:

function tests($) {
    $(".menu-item").eq(2).closest("ul").css({
      "background-color": "red"
    }).parent().css({
      "border": "1px solid blue"
    }).append($("<p></p>").text("Text.").css({
      "background-color": "green"
    })).end().end().remove();
  console.log('tests' + $);
}

 
function tests($) {    $(".menu-item").eq(2).closest("ul").css({      "background-color": "red"    }).parent().css({      "border": "1px solid blue"    }).append($("<p></p>").text("Text.").css({      "background-color": "green"    })).end().end().remove();  console.log('tests' + $);}

Tests:

$jq1124
tests($jq1124);
tests($jq1124);
$jq224
tests($jq224);
tests($jq224);
$jq331
tests($jq331);
tests($jq331);

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
$jq1124
$jq224
$jq331

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.110 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 70 on Mac OS X 10.13.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
$jq1124	15871.3 Ops/sec
$jq224	21573.3 Ops/sec
$jq331	21593.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):

Let's break down what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

Benchmark Definition

The benchmark definition is provided as a JSON object, which includes the following information:

Script Preparation Code: This code is executed before running the benchmark. In this case, it creates a jQuery instance and performs some DOM manipulation using the $ variable.
Html Preparation Code: This code is used to set up the HTML environment for the benchmark. It loads different versions of jQuery (1.7.2, 2.2.4, and 3.3.1) and assigns them to variables with a .noConflict() method call. The .noConflict() method is used to mitigate conflicts between multiple libraries using $ as their variable.

Individual Test Cases

The benchmark consists of three test cases:

"$jq1124": This test case uses the oldest version of jQuery (1.7.2) and runs the tests($jq1124) function.
"$jq224": This test case uses a newer version of jQuery (2.2.4) and runs the tests($jq224) function.
"$jq331": This test case uses the latest version of jQuery (3.3.1) and runs the tests($jq331) function.

Options Compared

The benchmark is comparing three options:

Using an older version of jQuery (1.7.2)
Using a newer version of jQuery (2.2.4)
Using the latest version of jQuery (3.3.1)

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

Using an older version of jQuery: This approach is likely to be slower due to the smaller size of the library, but it may also have better performance in certain scenarios where compatibility with older browsers is required.
Using a newer version of jQuery: This approach is likely to be faster due to the improved performance and features of the newer library. However, it may not be compatible with older browsers, which could limit its usefulness.
Using the latest version of jQuery: This approach is likely to be the fastest due to the extensive optimizations and improvements made in recent versions. However, it may also have a higher memory footprint and require more complex setup.

Library

The $.noConflict() method is used to mitigate conflicts between multiple libraries using $ as their variable. In this case, jQuery uses $ internally, but the .noConflict() method allows other libraries to use $ without conflicting with jQuery's functionality.

Special JS Feature or Syntax

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition that would require any specific knowledge of modern JavaScript.

Other Considerations

When running this benchmark, it's essential to consider the following factors:

Browser compatibility: The benchmark is likely to be run on multiple browsers, so ensuring compatibility with different browsers and versions is crucial.
Network latency: The benchmark may involve loading large files or making network requests, which could impact performance due to network latency.

Alternatives

There are several alternatives to this approach that could be used for benchmarking JavaScript libraries:

Benchmarking frameworks: Frameworks like Benchmark.js or jsperf can help simplify the process of writing and running benchmarks.
Virtual machines: Using virtual machines like V8.js or Node.js can provide a more consistent environment for testing performance.
Cloud-based benchmarking services: Services like BrowserStack or Sauce Labs offer cloud-based infrastructure for running browser-based benchmarks.

I hope this explanation helps!

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is provided as a JSON object, which includes the following information:

* `Script Preparation Code`: This code is executed before running the benchmark. In this case, it creates a jQuery instance and performs some DOM manipulation using the `$` variable.
* `Html Preparation Code`: This code is used to set up the HTML environment for the benchmark. It loads different versions of jQuery (1.7.2, 2.2.4, and 3.3.1) and assigns them to variables with a `.noConflict()` method call. The `.noConflict()` method is used to mitigate conflicts between multiple libraries using `$` as their variable.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of three test cases:

* `"$jq1124"`: This test case uses the oldest version of jQuery (1.7.2) and runs the `tests($jq1124)` function.
* `"$jq224"`: This test case uses a newer version of jQuery (2.2.4) and runs the `tests($jq224)` function.
* `"$jq331"`: This test case uses the latest version of jQuery (3.3.1) and runs the `tests($jq331)` function.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing three options:

1. Using an older version of jQuery (1.7.2)
2. Using a newer version of jQuery (2.2.4)
3. Using the latest version of jQuery (3.3.1)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Using an older version of jQuery**: This approach is likely to be slower due to the smaller size of the library, but it may also have better performance in certain scenarios where compatibility with older browsers is required.
* **Using a newer version of jQuery**: This approach is likely to be faster due to the improved performance and features of the newer library. However, it may not be compatible with older browsers, which could limit its usefulness.
* **Using the latest version of jQuery**: This approach is likely to be the fastest due to the extensive optimizations and improvements made in recent versions. However, it may also have a higher memory footprint and require more complex setup.

**Library**

The `$.noConflict()` method is used to mitigate conflicts between multiple libraries using `$` as their variable. In this case, jQuery uses `$` internally, but the `.noConflict()` method allows other libraries to use `$` without conflicting with jQuery's functionality.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition that would require any specific knowledge of modern JavaScript.

**Other Considerations**

When running this benchmark, it's essential to consider the following factors:

* Browser compatibility: The benchmark is likely to be run on multiple browsers, so ensuring compatibility with different browsers and versions is crucial.
* Network latency: The benchmark may involve loading large files or making network requests, which could impact performance due to network latency.

**Alternatives**

There are several alternatives to this approach that could be used for benchmarking JavaScript libraries:

1. **Benchmarking frameworks**: Frameworks like Benchmark.js or jsperf can help simplify the process of writing and running benchmarks.
2. **Virtual machines**: Using virtual machines like V8.js or Node.js can provide a more consistent environment for testing performance.
3. **Cloud-based benchmarking services**: Services like BrowserStack or Sauce Labs offer cloud-based infrastructure for running browser-based benchmarks.

I hope this explanation helps!

Related benchmarks:

JQuery version speed test 1.7.2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: $jq1124 vs $jq224 vs $jq331

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

$jq1124

$jq224

$jq331

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):