Benchmark: Queryselector vs getElement for Ed team

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="testdiv">
  <div id="unique" class="unique" name="unique" data-unique="1">test</div>
</div>

Tests:

getElementById
const div = document.getElementById(testdiv)
querySelector
const div = document.querySelector('#testdiv')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
getElementById
querySelector

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided benchmark definition is a JSON object that defines a test scenario for comparing the performance of two approaches: `document.getElementById` and `document.querySelector`. The script preparation code is empty, meaning that the tests will be run with no external dependencies or setup. The HTML preparation code includes a simple DOM structure with an ID attribute (`testdiv`) and another element inside it, which will be used as targets for the tests.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two options are compared:

1. **`document.getElementById`**: This method returns the first element in the DOM that matches the specified ID.
2. **`document.querySelector`**: This method returns the first element in the DOM that matches the specified CSS selector.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* `document.getElementById`:
	+ Pros: Simple, lightweight, and widely supported. It's also relatively fast since it only needs to find a single element.
	+ Cons: May not be as efficient if you're searching for multiple elements with the same ID, or if the DOM structure is complex.
* `document.querySelector`:
	+ Pros: More flexible than `getElementById`, allowing you to target elements based on CSS selectors. It's also more efficient since it can skip ahead in the DOM and reduce unnecessary comparisons.
	+ Cons: May be slower for simple cases due to the overhead of parsing CSS selectors.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. The `document` object is assumed to be available, which is a part of the standard DOM API.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

For similar benchmarks, MeasureThat.net offers other tests that compare performance between various approaches, such as:

* Using `document.getElementsByClassName` vs. `querySelectorAll`
* Comparing the performance of different DOM traversal methods, like `getElementsByClassName`, `getElementsByTagName`, and `querySelectorAll`

If you're interested in exploring more benchmark scenarios or testing specific libraries or frameworks, MeasureThat.net provides a wide range of options.

For this specific benchmark, if you want to try running the tests yourself, you can create an account on MeasureThat.net, prepare your HTML file with the same structure as before, and copy-paste the provided JavaScript code into your test script. Then, run the test using the MeasureThat.net interface to see the results for yourself!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 7.0; MHA-L09) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/76.0.3809.132 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 76 on Android 7.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
getElementById	152386.3 Ops/sec
querySelector	586482.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Queryselector vs getElement for Ed team (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: getElementById vs querySelector

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

getElementById

querySelector

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):