<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>
$('.wrapper').find('.find-this-element');
$('.wrapper .find-this-element');
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
find | |
direct selector |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
find | 346641.6 Ops/sec |
direct selector | 362663.4 Ops/sec |
I'll explain the benchmark in a clear and concise manner.
What is being tested?
MeasureThat.net is testing two different approaches for selecting an HTML element: find
and direct selector ($('.wrapper .find-this-element')
). The goal is to compare their performance and efficiency.
Options compared:
.find()
method: This method traverses the DOM from a given element to find another element that matches a specified selector.$('.wrapper .find-this-element')
): This approach uses a CSS-like syntax to directly select the desired element without traversing the DOM.Pros and Cons of each approach:
.find()
method:$('.wrapper .find-this-element')
):.find()
.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:
div.find-this-element
) to select elements.Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as convenient or efficient as the approaches tested in this benchmark.