Benchmark: find vs. direct selection

HTML Preparation code:

<div class="wrapper">
  <div class="find-this-element"></div>
</div>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Tests:

find
$('.wrapper').find('.find-this-element');
direct selector
$('.wrapper .find-this-element');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
find
direct selector

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/78.0.3904.108 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 78 on Mac OS X 10.15.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
find	346641.6 Ops/sec
direct selector	362663.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain the benchmark in a clear and concise manner.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two different approaches for selecting an HTML element: `find` and direct selector (`$('.wrapper .find-this-element')`). The goal is to compare their performance and efficiency.

**Options compared:**

1. **`.find()` method**: This method traverses the DOM from a given element to find another element that matches a specified selector.
2. **Direct selector (`$('.wrapper .find-this-element')`)**: This approach uses a CSS-like syntax to directly select the desired element without traversing the DOM.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. `.find()` method:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be used for more complex selections.
		+ Less prone to errors due to the explicit way it works.
	* Cons:
		+ Slower, as it traverses the DOM.
2. Direct selector (`$('.wrapper .find-this-element')`):
	* Pros:
		+ Generally faster than `.find()`.
	* Cons:
		+ More prone to errors due to the CSS-like syntax.
		+ May not work correctly for complex selections.

**Library usage:**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used as a library. jQuery provides a convenient way to select elements in the DOM using its selector functions (e.g., `.find()`, `$('.selector')`). In this case, it's used to execute both test cases.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different approaches for selecting HTML elements.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring other approaches, here are a few:

1. **CSS selectors without jQuery**: You can use pure CSS selectors (e.g., `div.find-this-element`) to select elements.
2. **Vanilla JavaScript**: Instead of using a library like jQuery, you could implement the selection logic using vanilla JavaScript.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as convenient or efficient as the approaches tested in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

find vs. direct selection (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: find vs direct selector

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

find

direct 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):