Benchmark: selectoptions - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<div>
  <input type="text" value=""/>
  <select id="sampleselect">
    <option value="0">0</option>
    <option value="1">1</option>
    <option value="2">2</option>
    <option value="3">3</option>
  </select>
</div>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Tests:

childrenfirst
$('#sampleselect').children('option').first()
directfirst
$('#sampleselect > option').first()
queryfirst
$('#sampleselect > option:first')
findfirst
$('#sampleselect').find('option').first()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
childrenfirst
directfirst
queryfirst
findfirst

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case named "selectoptions". This benchmark tests the performance of different methods to retrieve the first child element of an HTML select tag.

**Options Compared**

There are four options compared:

1. `childrenfirst`
2. `directfirst`
3. `queryfirst`
4. `findfirst`

Each option uses a different approach to achieve the same goal:

* `childrenfirst` uses the `children()` method, which returns a DOM NodeList containing all child elements of the specified element.
* `directfirst` uses a CSS selector (`> option`) to directly select the first child element.
* `queryfirst` uses a jQuery selector (`:first`) to retrieve the first element that matches the specified condition.
* `findfirst` uses the `find()` method, which returns a DOM NodeList containing all elements that match the specified condition.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

1. **childrenfirst**
	* Pros: Easy to understand and implement.
	* Cons: Can be slower than other methods because it requires creating a new DOM NodeList.
2. **directfirst**
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, as it only returns the first child element.
	* Cons: May not work in older browsers that don't support CSS selectors.
3. **queryfirst**
	* Pros: Easy to read and maintain, especially for developers familiar with jQuery.
	* Cons: Can be slower than `directfirst` because jQuery needs to parse the selector.
4. **findfirst**
	* Pros: Efficient, as it returns a DOM NodeList containing only one element.
	* Cons: May not work in older browsers that don't support the `find()` method.

**Library and Purpose**

The test case uses jQuery (version 3.3.1) as its library. The purpose of jQuery is to simplify HTML and CSS manipulation, making it easier to write dynamic web pages.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the provided benchmark options use special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

For testing similar performance-related aspects of select elements, consider using:

* Vanilla JavaScript alternatives like `getElementsByAttribute()` or `document.querySelector()`
* Other libraries or frameworks that provide efficient methods for working with DOM elements

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics and should be tested accordingly.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:66.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/66.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 66 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
childrenfirst	320166.6 Ops/sec
directfirst	437609.9 Ops/sec
queryfirst	59567.2 Ops/sec
findfirst	609630.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

selectoptions (version: 0)

selectoptions

Comparing performance of: childrenfirst vs directfirst vs queryfirst vs findfirst

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

childrenfirst

directfirst

queryfirst

findfirst

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):