Benchmark: jQuery 3.3.1 selector vs jQuery 2.1.4 vs document.querySelector vs document.getElementById length

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  var jq331 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.4/jquery.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  var jq214 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div id="testElement"></div>

AخA
 
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  var jq331 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.4/jquery.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  var jq214 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div id="testElement"></div>

Tests:

jQuery 3.3.1
var el = jq331("#testElement"); var className = el.length;
var el = jq331("#testElement");
var className = el.length;
jQuery 2.1.4
var el = jq214("#testElement"); var className = el.length;
var el = jq214("#testElement");
var className = el.length;
Vanilla JS querySelector
var el = document.querySelector('#testElement'); var className = el.id;
var el = document.querySelector('#testElement');
var className = el.id;
Vanilla JS getElementById
var el = document.getElementById('testElement'); var className = el.id;
var el = document.getElementById('testElement');
var className = el.id;

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
jQuery 3.3.1
jQuery 2.1.4
Vanilla JS querySelector
Vanilla JS getElementById

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_6) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/14.0.2 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 14 on Mac OS X 10.15.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery 3.3.1	1754598.6 Ops/sec
jQuery 2.1.4	1824166.6 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS querySelector	3200324.2 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS getElementById	4517563.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

Let's break down the provided benchmark.

What is being tested?

The website, MeasureThat.net, provides a platform for users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. In this case, we're testing the speed of four different methods to get an HTML element by its ID:

jQuery 3.3.1 selector: Using jQuery's $(selector) method to select an element.
jQuery 2.1.4 selector: Similar to above, but using an older version of jQuery.
Vanilla JS querySelector: Using the native querySelector method provided by modern browsers.
Vanilla JS getElementById: Using the native getElementById method provided by modern browsers.

Options compared

The four options are being compared in terms of their execution speed, which is measured in executions per second (EPS).

Pros and Cons of each approach:

jQuery selector: Pros:
- Easy to use for DOM manipulation.
- Provides a convenient way to select elements using CSS selectors.
- Can be useful for complex DOM queries.

Cons: * Requires jQuery, which can add additional overhead due to its library size. * May not perform as well on older browsers or those with limited resources. 2. jQuery 2.x selector: Pros: * Still relatively easy to use and performant compared to older versions of jQuery. * Smaller library size compared to newer versions.

Cons: * Older version, which may lead to compatibility issues or performance issues in modern browsers. 3. Vanilla JS querySelector: Pros: * Native method, so no additional overhead from a library. * Generally faster and more efficient than jQuery selector. 4. Vanilla JS getElementById: Pros: * Native method, so no additional overhead from a library. * Similar to querySelector in terms of speed.

Cons: * Does not support CSS selectors, which can make it less convenient for DOM manipulation.

Special considerations:

None mentioned in the provided benchmark.

Other alternatives:

If you don't want to use jQuery or native methods, you could consider other libraries like:

D3.js: A popular data visualization library that also provides DOM manipulation utilities.
Sequel.js: A lightweight alternative to jQuery with similar functionality.
Vanilla DOM manipulation: You can use modern JavaScript features and APIs to manipulate the DOM without any additional libraries.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs, pros, and cons.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

1. **jQuery 3.3.1 selector**: Using jQuery's `$(selector)` method to select an element.
2. **jQuery 2.1.4 selector**: Similar to above, but using an older version of jQuery.
3. **Vanilla JS querySelector**: Using the native `querySelector` method provided by modern browsers.
4. **Vanilla JS getElementById**: Using the native `getElementById` method provided by modern browsers.

**Options compared**

The four options are being compared in terms of their execution speed, which is measured in executions per second (EPS).

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **jQuery selector**: Pros:
	* Easy to use for DOM manipulation.
	* Provides a convenient way to select elements using CSS selectors.
	* Can be useful for complex DOM queries.

Cons:
	* Requires jQuery, which can add additional overhead due to its library size.
	* May not perform as well on older browsers or those with limited resources.
2. **jQuery 2.x selector**: Pros:
	* Still relatively easy to use and performant compared to older versions of jQuery.
	* Smaller library size compared to newer versions.

Cons:
	* Older version, which may lead to compatibility issues or performance issues in modern browsers.
3. **Vanilla JS querySelector**: Pros:
	* Native method, so no additional overhead from a library.
	* Generally faster and more efficient than jQuery selector.
4. **Vanilla JS getElementById**: Pros:
	* Native method, so no additional overhead from a library.
	* Similar to querySelector in terms of speed.

Cons:
	* Does not support CSS selectors, which can make it less convenient for DOM manipulation.

**Special considerations:**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark.

**Other alternatives:**

If you don't want to use jQuery or native methods, you could consider other libraries like:

1. **D3.js**: A popular data visualization library that also provides DOM manipulation utilities.
2. **Sequel.js**: A lightweight alternative to jQuery with similar functionality.
3. **Vanilla DOM manipulation**: You can use modern JavaScript features and APIs to manipulate the DOM without any additional libraries.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs, pros, and cons.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery 3.3.1 selector vs jQuery 2.1.4 vs document.querySelector vs document.getElementById length (version: 0)

Comparing speed of jQuery 3.3.1 selector, jQuery 2.1.4, vanilla JS querySelector, and vanilla JS getElementById

Comparing performance of: jQuery 3.3.1 vs jQuery 2.1.4 vs Vanilla JS querySelector vs Vanilla JS getElementById

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery 3.3.1

jQuery 2.1.4

Vanilla JS querySelector

Vanilla JS getElementById

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):