Benchmark: jquery .each vs .find attribute

HTML Preparation code:

<ul id="testme">
  <li value="1">
  </li>
  <li value="12">
  </li>
  <li value="122">
  </li>
  <li value="1222">
  </li>
  <li value="12222">
  </li>
  <li value="122222">
  </li>
  <li value="1222222">
  </li>
  <li value="12222222">
  </li>
  <li value="122222222">
  </li>
  <li value="1222222222">
  </li>
  <li value="12222222222">
  </li>
  <li value="20">
  </li>
</ul>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var MyValue = "20";

Tests:

each
$("#testme li").each(function() { if ($(this).value == MyValue) { console.log("true"); } });
find
$("#testme").find("[value=" + MyValue + "]").each(function() { console.log("true"); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
each
find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares the performance of two approaches to search for an element based on its attribute using jQuery. The benchmark is designed to measure the execution speed of these two approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two test cases:

1. `each`: This test case uses the `.each()` method to iterate over the elements and checks if the value of each element matches the predefined value `MyValue` (set in the script preparation code). The test loop iterates over all 10 elements.
2. `find`: This test case uses the `.find()` method to search for an element based on its attribute, specifically the `[value=" + MyValue + "]` attribute. The test loop also iterates over all 10 elements.

**Options Compared**

The two options compared in this benchmark are:

1. **.each()**: Iterating over elements using the `.each()` method and checking each element's value individually.
2. **.find()**: Using the `.find()` method to search for an element based on its attribute.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **.each()**:
	+ Pros: Simple, straightforward approach that iterates over elements one by one. Easy to understand and implement.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of function calls and iterating over each element individually.
* **.find()**:
	+ Pros: Faster than `.each()` because it stops as soon as it finds a matching element, reducing unnecessary iterations.
	+ Cons: More complex approach that requires using a CSS selector and may not work in all cases (e.g., if the attribute is dynamic).

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses jQuery, a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. The `.each()` and `.find()` methods are part of jQuery's API.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. Both approaches only use standard JavaScript and jQuery functionality.

**Other Considerations**

When using these approaches, keep in mind that the performance difference may be negligible for small datasets like this one. However, as the dataset grows, the `.find()` approach might become more efficient due to its ability to stop searching once it finds a match.

For larger datasets or performance-critical applications, consider optimizing the search logic or using alternative approaches, such as:

* Using `Array.prototype.find()` (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) for faster iteration.
* Implementing your own iteration loop without relying on jQuery's methods.
* Utilizing more efficient data structures, like Sets or Maps, to store and query elements.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to compare the performance of searching for an element based on its attribute include:

1. Using `querySelectorAll()` with a CSS selector to select all matching elements.
2. Implementing your own iteration loop using `Array.prototype.forEach()` or `for...of` loops.
3. Utilizing a library like Lodash, which provides optimized functions for common tasks, including element searching.

These alternatives might offer different trade-offs in terms of complexity, performance, and code readability.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/104.0.5112.102 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 104 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
each	87445.6 Ops/sec
find	49513.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jquery .each vs .find attribute (version: 0)

Search an element taking into account one of its attributes using an each loop vs a find [attribute]

Comparing performance of: each vs find

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

each

find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):