<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
<table>
<thead>
<th>
test
</th>
</thead>
</table>
$("table").find("thead").find("th")
$("table").find("thead th")
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
jquery find find | |
jquery find |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
jquery find find | 393140.7 Ops/sec |
jquery find | 211923.2 Ops/sec |
I'll explain the benchmark in detail.
What is tested:
The provided JSON represents two test cases, both of which aim to measure the performance difference between two ways of using jQuery's find()
method. The methods being compared are:
find("thead").find("th")
find("thead th")
These methods differ in how they handle multiple selectors.
Options comparison:
The two options being compared are:
"thead"
) and then calling find()
on it, followed by another call to find()
on the result with a second selector ("th"
). This approach is called "double-chain" or "nested chaining".find()
, separated by whitespace ("thead th"
). This approach is called "single-chain" or "adjacent chaining".Pros and Cons of each approach:
Library:
The benchmark uses jQuery, a popular JavaScript library that provides a set of DOM manipulation and event handling functions. In this case, find()
is a method provided by jQuery that allows selecting elements within the document tree based on a given CSS selector.
Special JS feature or syntax:
There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond what's typically expected from JavaScript and jQuery. The code is straightforward and easy to understand for most developers familiar with the basics of JavaScript and HTML/CSS.
Other alternatives:
If you're looking for alternative approaches to measure performance, consider:
Keep in mind that when writing benchmarks, it's essential to consider factors beyond just raw speed, such as code readability and maintainability.