Benchmark: jQuery 3.3.1 selector vs jQuery 1.8.3 vs document.querySelector vs document.getElementById

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/1.8.3/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")[0]; var className = el.className;
jQuery 1.8.3
var el = jq214("#testElement")[0]; var className = el.className;
Vanilla JS querySelector
var el = document.querySelector('#testElement'); var className = el.className;
Vanilla JS getElementById
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 3.3.1
jQuery 1.8.3
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_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/87.0.4280.88 Safari/537.36 Edg/87.0.664.60

Browser/OS: Chrome 87 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery 3.3.1	1597499.8 Ops/sec
jQuery 1.8.3	1546565.8 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS querySelector	2314032.0 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS getElementById	4410787.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test comparing the performance of different JavaScript libraries and DOM manipulation methods: jQuery (versions 3.3.1 and 1.8.3) and two vanilla JavaScript methods: `document.querySelector` and `document.getElementById`.

Let's break down each test case:

**Test Case 1:** "jQuery 3.3.1"
```javascript
var el = jq331("#testElement")[0];
var className = el.className;
```
In this test, jQuery 3.3.1 is used to select an element by its ID and then access the `className` property.

**Test Case 2:** "jQuery 1.8.3"
```javascript
var el = jq214("#testElement")[0];
var className = el.className;
```
Here, jQuery 1.8.3 is used to select an element by its ID and then access the `className` property.

Both test cases use jQuery's `noConflict` method to ensure that the tests are executed in a way that prevents conflicts with other scripts on the page.

**Test Case 3:** "Vanilla JS querySelector"
```javascript
var el = document.querySelector('#testElement');
var className = el.className;
```
In this test, the native `document.querySelector` method is used to select an element by its ID and then access the `className` property.

**Test Case 4:** "Vanilla JS getElementById"
```javascript
var el = document.getElementById('testElement');
var className = el.className;
```
Here, the native `document.getElementById` method is used to select an element by its ID and then access the `className` property.

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

* **jQuery**: jQuery provides a convenient way to select elements on the page using its selector syntax. However, it introduces additional overhead due to its library size and complexity.
	+ Pros: Easy to use, efficient for simple DOM manipulations.
	+ Cons: Adds extra dependencies, can be slower than native methods for large datasets.
* **Vanilla JS**: Using native JavaScript methods like `document.querySelector` and `document.getElementById` is generally faster and more lightweight than jQuery.
	+ Pros: Fastest option, least overhead.
	+ Cons: Requires manual DOM selection and manipulation, less convenient for complex queries.
* **QuerySelector vs getElementById**: Both methods are fast and efficient, but they have different use cases:
	+ `querySelector` returns the first matching element, which can be slower for large datasets.
	+ `getElementById` returns a single element by ID, which is often faster.

Other considerations:

* **Library size and complexity**: jQuery is larger and more complex than vanilla JavaScript methods, which can impact performance.
* **DOM manipulation overhead**: jQuery's selector syntax can introduce additional overhead due to the need to parse and execute the queries.

Alternatives to these test cases include using other JavaScript libraries or DOM manipulation methods, such as:

* **CSS selectors**: Using CSS selectors like `#testElement` or `[class="myClass"]` to select elements.
* **DOM API**: Utilizing other DOM API methods like `createElement`, `appendChild`, and `removeChild`.
* **Other query methods**: Exploring alternative query methods like `document.querySelectorAll` or `querySelectorAll`.

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these test cases may vary depending on the specific use case, dataset size, and browser environment.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery 3.3.1 selector vs jQuery 1.8.3 vs document.querySelector vs document.getElementById (version: 0)

Comparing speed of jQuery 3.3.1 selector, jQuery 1.8.3, vanilla JS querySelector, and vanilla JS getElementById

Comparing performance of: jQuery 3.3.1 vs jQuery 1.8.3 vs Vanilla JS querySelector vs Vanilla JS getElementById

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery 3.3.1

jQuery 1.8.3

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 2 months ago):