Benchmark: testforJquery - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<section id="test">
    <div class="ffffff">
        <div class="aaa">
            <strong class="ssssle">ブラブラ</strong>
            <p class="eee">ブラブラ</p>
            <p class="weee">
                <span class="button"><button id="kjkjk"><span>ブラブラ</span></button></span>
            </p>
        </div>
    </div>
</section>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Tests:

test2
$('section#test').remove
test3
$('#test').remove

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test2
test3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark is measuring the performance of two different ways to remove an HTML element using jQuery. The test cases are:

1. `$('section#test').remove`
2. `$('#test').remove`

Both tests use a fixed HTML structure, which includes a `<section>` element with an ID of "test". The tests also include a script tag that loads the jQuery library.

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. Using the delegated event system (`$('section#test').remove`)
2. Using the traditional DOM query method (`$('#test').remove`)

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Delegated event system**: This approach uses jQuery's delegated event system, which allows it to attach events to a specific element (in this case, `body`) and then delegate those events to child elements. The advantage is that it can improve performance by avoiding the need for unnecessary DOM searches.
2. **Traditional DOM query method**: This approach uses traditional jQuery selectors to select an element and remove it from the DOM. The advantage is that it's often more straightforward and easier to understand, but may be slower due to the DOM search.

**Pros of delegated event system:**

* Improved performance by reducing unnecessary DOM searches
* More efficient use of resources

**Cons of delegated event system:**

* Can be more complex to set up and manage
* May require additional setup for event delegation

**Pros of traditional DOM query method:**

* Easier to understand and implement
* No additional setup required

**Cons of traditional DOM query method:**

* Can be slower due to unnecessary DOM searches
* More resource-intensive

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used as the primary library for both tests. jQuery provides a set of functions and methods for manipulating the DOM, handling events, and interacting with other libraries.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The code uses standard jQuery syntax and no advanced features like async/await or promises.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to implement this benchmark yourself, you could also consider using other JavaScript libraries or frameworks that provide similar functionality, such as:

* Vanilla JavaScript (using DOM APIs)
* React or Angular for building the UI
* Other libraries like jQuery-like alternatives (e.g., GSAP)

However, since this is a microbenchmark focused on measuring performance differences between two specific jQuery methods, it's likely that you would stick with using jQuery or another library that provides similar functionality.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/75.0.3770.100 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 75 on Mac OS X 10.14.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test2	426735.9 Ops/sec
test3	1592388.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testforJquery (version: 0)

testforJquery Performance

Comparing performance of: test2 vs test3

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test2

test3

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):