Benchmark: Live vs static collection

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1/jquery.min.js">
</script>
<p id="foo" class="my-foo">
  Foo
</p>
<p id="bar" class="my-bar">
  Bar
</p>
<div id="poo" class="my-poo">
  <div id="par" class="my-bar">
    <div id="paz" class="my-bar">
      <span id="baz" class="my-baz">
        Baz
      </span>
    </div>
  </div>
</div>

Tests:

jQuery class selector
var bar = $('.my-bar');
querySelectorAll for class
var bar = document.querySelectorAll('.my-bar');
getElementsByClassName
var bar = document.getElementsByClassName('my-bar');
jQuery tag selector
var div = $('div');
querySelectorAll for tag
var div = document.querySelectorAll('div');
getElementsByTagName
var div = document.getElementsByTagName('div');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery class selector
querySelectorAll for class
getElementsByClassName
jQuery tag selector
querySelectorAll for tag
getElementsByTagName

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compare different approaches, and discuss pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The JSON defines a benchmark named "Live vs static collection". The description is empty, but the script preparation code includes jQuery library, which is used in multiple test cases. The HTML preparation code contains a simple DOM structure with nested elements.

**Script Preparation Code**

```javascript
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1/jquery.min.js"></script>

<p id="foo" class="my-foo">Foo</p>
<p id="bar" class="my-bar">Bar</p>
<div id="poo" class="my-poo">
  <div id="par" class="my-bar">
    <div id="paz" class="my-bar">
      <span id="baz" class="my-baz">Baz</span>
    </div>
  </div>
</div>
```

This code sets up a jQuery environment with a specific DOM structure, which will be used to test different selection methods.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of six test cases:

1. `jQuery class selector`
2. `querySelectorAll for class`
3. `getElementsByClassName`
4. `jQuery tag selector`
5. `querySelectorAll for tag`
6. `getElementsByTagName`

Each test case has a unique `Benchmark Definition` string that defines how to select elements in the DOM.

**Comparison of Selection Methods**

Here's a brief overview of each selection method, their pros and cons:

1. **jQuery class selector (`var bar = $('.my-bar');`)**
	* Pros: Fast and efficient for classes.
	* Cons: Requires jQuery library.
2. `querySelectorAll for class`
	* Pros: Fast and efficient for classes.
	* Cons: Uses a non-proprietary method, which may not work in older browsers.
3. `getElementsByClassName`
	* Pros: Fast and efficient for classes.
	* Cons: Only works on elements that have a class attribute, not all elements.
4. **jQuery tag selector (`var bar = $('div');`)**
	* Pros: Fast and efficient for tags.
	* Cons: Requires jQuery library.
5. `querySelectorAll for tag`
	* Pros: Fast and efficient for tags.
	* Cons: Uses a non-proprietary method, which may not work in older browsers.
6. `getElementsByTagName`
	* Pros: Works on all elements, regardless of attributes.
	* Cons: Generally slower than other methods.

**Library - jQuery**

The jQuery library is used to implement the class and tag selectors. It provides an efficient way to select elements based on their classes or tags. However, it requires additional script loading and may add overhead for some tests.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax - None mentioned**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to these selection methods include:

* `document.querySelector` (a non-proprietary method, similar to `querySelectorAll`, but works on all elements)
* `element.matches()` (a newer method for testing class matches, part of the W3C specification)

Note that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics or browser support compared to the original methods.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/79.0.3945.117 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 79 on Mac OS X 10.15.2

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery class selector	723823.1 Ops/sec
querySelectorAll for class	1426242.4 Ops/sec
getElementsByClassName	4764920.5 Ops/sec
jQuery tag selector	638157.4 Ops/sec
querySelectorAll for tag	1391075.6 Ops/sec
getElementsByTagName	4712127.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Live vs static collection (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jQuery class selector vs querySelectorAll for class vs getElementsByClassName vs jQuery tag selector vs querySelectorAll for tag vs getElementsByTagName

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

jQuery class selector

querySelectorAll for class

getElementsByClassName

jQuery tag selector

querySelectorAll for tag

getElementsByTagName

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):