Benchmark: jQuery vs Vanilla JS Selectors

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.slim.min.js"></script>
<div id="foo" class="bar" data-hook="test">Hello World</div>

Tests:

Pure JS ID Selector
var el = document.getElementById("foo"); console.log(el);
Pure JS Class Selector
var el = document.getElementsByClassName("bar"); console.log(el);
Pure JS Data Hook
var el = document.querySelectorAll('[data-hook~="test"]'); console.log(el);
jQuery ID Selector
console.log($("#foo"));
jQuery Class Selector
console.log($(".bar"));
jQuery Data Hook Selector
console.log($('[data-hook="test"]'));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Pure JS ID Selector
Pure JS Class Selector
Pure JS Data Hook
jQuery ID Selector
jQuery Class Selector
jQuery Data Hook Selector

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:125.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/125.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 125 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Pure JS ID Selector	169650.5 Ops/sec
Pure JS Class Selector	166811.0 Ops/sec
Pure JS Data Hook	140521.1 Ops/sec
jQuery ID Selector	158451.2 Ops/sec
jQuery Class Selector	139674.2 Ops/sec
jQuery Data Hook Selector	126372.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is called "jQuery vs Vanilla JS Selectors" and measures the performance of JavaScript selectors using both jQuery and vanilla JavaScript.

**Test Cases**

There are six test cases, each comparing a different type of selector:

1. **Pure JS ID Selector**: Tests selecting an element by its ID attribute using `document.getElementById`.
2. **Pure JS Class Selector**: Tests selecting elements by their class attribute using `document.getElementsByClassName`.
3. **Pure JS Data Hook**: Tests selecting elements with a specific data attribute using `document.querySelectorAll`.
4. **jQuery ID Selector**: Tests selecting an element by its ID attribute using jQuery's `$()` function.
5. **jQuery Class Selector**: Tests selecting elements by their class attribute using jQuery's `$()` function.
6. **jQuery Data Hook Selector**: Tests selecting elements with a specific data attribute using jQuery's `$()` function.

**Options Compared**

The test cases compare the performance of different approaches to select elements:

* Vanilla JavaScript (`document.getElementById`, `document.getElementsByClassName`, and `document.querySelectorAll`)
* jQuery (`$()` function)

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Vanilla JavaScript:**

Pros:

* Lightweight and efficient
* No dependencies on external libraries
* Can be used in situations where jQuery is not available or desired

Cons:

* Requires manual string manipulation for class selectors (e.g., `document.getElementsByClassName("bar")`)
* May require additional DOM traversal if multiple elements are selected

**jQuery:**

Pros:

* Simplifies complex selector logic and reduces code duplication
* Provides a consistent API for selecting elements
* Can be used in situations where performance is critical, as it caches DOM elements for repeated use

Cons:

* Adds an external dependency on the jQuery library
* May have higher memory overhead due to caching of DOM elements
* Some users may prefer the more explicit control and flexibility offered by vanilla JavaScript

**Library: `jQuery`**

The jQuery library provides a simplified way to select elements in HTML documents. It uses a proprietary syntax that is not part of standard JavaScript. The `$()` function acts as a bridge between the DOM and the user's code, allowing for concise and expressive selector logic.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There isn't a specific special feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, jQuery does introduce some new concepts and notation (e.g., `.class` instead of `class`, `[attribute]` instead of `attr()`) that can affect the performance and readability of code.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to implement similar selectors without using jQuery, other libraries like `Sizzle` or `QuerySelector` might be alternatives. However, these libraries are typically more complex than jQuery and may require additional setup and configuration.

Keep in mind that this benchmark focuses on the performance comparison between vanilla JavaScript and jQuery for selecting elements by ID, class, and data attribute. Other benchmarks might compare different approaches to other tasks or use cases.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery vs Vanilla JS Selectors (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: Pure JS ID Selector vs Pure JS Class Selector vs Pure JS Data Hook vs jQuery ID Selector vs jQuery Class Selector vs jQuery Data Hook Selector

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Pure JS ID Selector

Pure JS Class Selector

Pure JS Data Hook

jQuery ID Selector

jQuery Class Selector

jQuery Data Hook Selector

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):