Benchmark: test bench mark - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<div class="test"></div>
<div class="test"></div>
<div class="test"></div>
<div class="test"></div>
<div class="test"></div>
<div class="test"></div>
<div class="test"></div>
<div class="test"></div>
<div class="test"></div>
<div class="test"></div>

Tests:

querySelectorAll
document.querySelectorAll(".test")
getElementsByClassName
document.getElementsByClassName(".test")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
querySelectorAll
getElementsByClassName

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Understanding the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test created on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark tests two individual functions: `document.querySelectorAll()` and `document.getElementsByClassName()`. These functions are used to retrieve elements from a DOM (Document Object Model) using CSS selectors.

**What is being tested?**

* `document.querySelectorAll()`: This function returns an HTMLCollection of all elements that match the specified selector.
* `document.getElementsByClassName()`: This function returns an HTMLCollection of all elements with the specified class name.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares two approaches to achieve these functions:

1. **Native DOM methods**: Using native JavaScript methods to access the DOM, which are implemented in the browser's engine (e.g., V8 in Chrome).
2. **Library-based solutions**: Using external libraries or polyfills to implement these functions.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Native DOM methods**:
	* Pros:
		+ Typically faster and more efficient.
		+ Lower memory usage.
		+ Less overhead compared to library-based solutions.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be compatible with older browsers or systems.
		+ Requires a browser engine that supports these functions (e.g., V8 in Chrome).
2. **Library-based solutions**:
	* Pros:
		+ More portable and compatible across different browsers and systems.
		+ Easier to maintain and update for compatibility issues.
	* Cons:
		+ May introduce additional overhead, affecting performance.
		+ Requires loading an external library.

**Libraries used**

In this benchmark, the library `jsdom` is not explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's likely that the `document.querySelectorAll()` and `document.getElementsByClassName()` functions are using the native implementation of these methods, which might be polyfilled by libraries like jsdom or other implementations.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and uses only standard JavaScript functions and DOM methods.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to benchmarking JavaScript performance, consider:

1. **Benchmarking frameworks**: Tools like Benchmark.js, jsperf, or Benchmarklib provide a structured approach to writing benchmarks.
2. **Browser-specific benchmarks**: Some browsers, like Chrome or Firefox, have built-in benchmarking tools that allow you to compare the performance of different scripts.
3. **Node.js benchmarks**: If you're targeting Node.js, consider using libraries like Benchmark.js or jsbench.me to create and run benchmarks.

In summary, this benchmark tests the performance difference between native DOM methods and library-based solutions for two common JavaScript functions: `document.querySelectorAll()` and `document.getElementsByClassName()`.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/79.0.3945.88 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 79 on Mac OS X 10.14.4

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
querySelectorAll	1016983.8 Ops/sec
getElementsByClassName	4900264.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test bench mark (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: querySelectorAll vs getElementsByClassName

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

querySelectorAll

getElementsByClassName

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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