Benchmark: jQuery height Vs Native height

HTML Preparation code:

<script
  src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.4.0.min.js"
  integrity="sha256-BJeo0qm959uMBGb65z40ejJYGSgR7REI4+CW1fNKwOg="
  crossorigin="anonymous"></script>

<div id="target">
</div>

Script Preparation code:

  	var $target = $("#target");
  	var target = document.getElementById("target");

Tests:

jQuery CSS function
$target.css("height");
jQuery height function
$target.height();
jquery inline styling
$target[0].style.height;
native inline styling
target.style.height;
Native offsetHeight (IE8+)
target.offsetHeight;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery CSS function
jQuery height function
jquery inline styling
native inline styling
Native offsetHeight (IE8+)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark compares the performance of different approaches for setting the `height` property on an HTML element.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition JSON contains two parts: Script Preparation Code and Html Preparation Code.

*   **Script Preparation Code**: This section defines variables `$target` and `target`, both referencing an HTML element with the id "target". The purpose of these variables is to simplify the script and make it easier to understand.
*   **Html Preparation Code**: This section includes a script tag that loads jQuery version 3.4.0, a JavaScript library used for DOM manipulation.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of five individual test cases:

1.  **jQuery CSS function**: This test case measures the performance of using jQuery's `css` method to set the `height` property on an element.
2.  **jQuery height function**: This test case measures the performance of using jQuery's `height` method to set the `height` property on an element.
3.  **jquery inline styling**: This test case measures the performance of setting the `height` property directly on the DOM element (inline styling) using jQuery's `$target[0]`.
4.  **native inline styling**: This test case measures the performance of setting the `height` property directly on the DOM element (inline styling) without using jQuery.
5.  **Native offsetHeight (IE8+)**: This test case measures the performance of using the `offsetHeight` method to get and set the height of an element, which is a common approach in older versions of Internet Explorer.

**Library and Syntax Used**

*   **jQuery**: A popular JavaScript library used for DOM manipulation, event handling, and other tasks. It provides functions like `$target.css("height")`, `$target.height()`, and `target.style.height`.
*   **Safari/Chrome-specific syntax**: The benchmark uses Safari and Chrome's syntax for setting the `height` property (e.g., `element.style.height = "value"`). This is not a standard JavaScript syntax and may not work in all browsers.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

*   **jQuery CSS function**: Pros: Easy to use, widely supported by modern browsers. Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of jQuery.
*   **jQuery height function**: Pros: Easy to use, widely supported by modern browsers. Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of jQuery.
*   **jquery inline styling**: Pros: Fast, lightweight, and doesn't require any libraries or frameworks. Cons: Less readable, not suitable for complex layouts.
*   **native inline styling**: Pros: Fast, lightweight, and doesn't require any libraries or frameworks. Cons: May not work in older browsers that support jQuery's DOM manipulation methods.
*   **Native offsetHeight (IE8+)**: Pros: Widely supported by older versions of Internet Explorer. Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of using a proprietary method.

**Other Considerations**

*   When working with large datasets or complex layouts, it's essential to consider the performance implications of different approaches and choose the most suitable one.
*   Modern browsers support many JavaScript methods for setting CSS properties, including `element.style.height`, `element.style.top`, and others. When possible, use these native methods instead of relying on jQuery or other libraries.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you need to set CSS properties on an element without using jQuery or other libraries, consider the following alternatives:

*   **Vanilla JavaScript**: Use native JavaScript methods like `style.height`, `style.top`, etc.
*   **CSSOM (CSS Object Model)**: Manipulate elements using the `CSSStyleDeclaration` API.

These approaches offer more control over styling and can be faster than relying on libraries or frameworks. However, they may require more effort to implement correctly.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery CSS function	232702.5 Ops/sec
jQuery height function	199579.8 Ops/sec
jquery inline styling	7844622.0 Ops/sec
native inline styling	8002894.0 Ops/sec
Native offsetHeight (IE8+)	1371995.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery height Vs Native height (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jQuery CSS function vs jQuery height function vs jquery inline styling vs native inline styling vs Native offsetHeight (IE8+)

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery CSS function

jQuery height function

jquery inline styling

native inline styling

Native offsetHeight (IE8+)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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