Benchmark: Direct access item vs jquery based access

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="hello"></div>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Tests:

Direct access
var t = $("#hello") t.attr("data-test", "asdf1"); t.attr("data-test", "asdf2"); t.attr("data-test", "asdf3"); t.attr("data-test", "asdf4"); t.attr("data-test", "asdf5"); t.attr("data-test", "asdf6"); t.attr("data-test", "asdf7"); t.attr("data-test", "asdf8"); t.attr("data-test", "asdf9"); t.attr("data-test", "asdf10");
Redundant jQuery
var t = $("#hello") $(t).attr("data-test", "asdf1"); $(t).attr("data-test", "asdf2"); $(t).attr("data-test", "asdf3"); $(t).attr("data-test", "asdf4"); $(t).attr("data-test", "asdf5"); $(t).attr("data-test", "asdf6"); $(t).attr("data-test", "asdf7"); $(t).attr("data-test", "asdf8"); $(t).attr("data-test", "asdf9"); $(t).attr("data-test", "asdf10");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Direct access
Redundant jQuery

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_14_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/79.0.3945.88 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 79 on Mac OS X 10.14.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Direct access	101862.0 Ops/sec
Redundant jQuery	37398.0 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 explain what's being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to accessing an HTML element using jQuery: direct access (`Direct access`) and redundant jQuery usage (`Redundant jQuery`). The goal is to determine which approach is faster in terms of execution time per second (`ExecutionsPerSecond`).

**Direct Access**

In the `Direct access` test case, the JavaScript code directly accesses the `#hello` element using its ID:
```javascript
var t = $("#hello");
t.attr("data-test", "asdf1");
```
The pros of this approach are:

* It's a straightforward and efficient way to access the element.
* It avoids unnecessary jQuery object creation.

However, there are some potential drawbacks:

* If the element doesn't exist or is not found, it will result in an error.
* The `attr()` method may have some additional overhead compared to setting attributes directly on the element.

**Redundant jQuery**

In the `Redundant jQuery` test case, the JavaScript code uses jQuery to access the `#hello` element and then repeatedly sets a single attribute (`data-test`) on it:
```javascript
var t = $("#hello");
$(t).attr("data-test", "asdf1");
```
The pros of this approach are:

* It's easy to understand and write.
* The `$()` function is often used for DOM manipulation, making it familiar to developers.

However, there are some potential drawbacks:

* Creating a jQuery object and then calling `attr()` on it adds unnecessary overhead.
* This approach can lead to slow performance if the element needs to be accessed multiple times.

**Comparison**

The benchmark shows that the `Direct access` approach is significantly faster than the `Redundant jQuery` approach. This is because direct access avoids the overhead of creating a jQuery object and calling `attr()` on it.

**Library Usage**

In both test cases, jQuery is used as a library to provide DOM manipulation functionality. The `$()` function is used to select the element and then call methods like `attr()` on it.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some older browsers may not support jQuery or its methods, which could affect benchmark results.

**Other Alternatives**

For this type of benchmark, other alternatives might include:

* Using a different library like vanilla DOM manipulation (e.g., `document.getElementById()`, `innerHTML` updates).
* Implementing the same functionality without JavaScript altogether (e.g., using Web Storage or local caching).
* Comparing different optimizations or techniques for accessing elements in a specific scenario.

These alternatives would require modifications to the benchmark code and might not produce the same results as the original implementation.

Related benchmarks:

Direct access item vs jquery based access (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Direct access vs Redundant jQuery

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Direct access

Redundant jQuery

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):