Benchmark: test112 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.4.1.min.js"></script>
<div class="foo">Hello World</div>

Script Preparation code:

function $q(selector, context) {
    return (context || document).querySelectorAll(selector);
}

Tests:

JQuery
var el = $('.foo');
Custom selector
var el = $q('.foo');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JQuery
Custom selector

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net, where JavaScript microbenchmarks come to life.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided benchmark definition JSON represents a test case that measures the performance difference between two approaches:

1. **JQuery**: A popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling.
2. **Custom selector**: A custom implementation of a CSS-like selector function, ` $q(selector, context)`, which is used to select elements from a document.

The benchmark script preparation code defines the ` $q(selector, context)` function, which takes two arguments: a string `selector` and an optional `context`. The function returns a NodeList containing all elements that match the specified selector within the provided `context`.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a reference to jQuery version 3.4.1, as well as a simple `<div>` element with a class of "foo", which is used to test the selection logic.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **JQuery**: This test case uses the `$.` function to select the element with class "foo".
2. **Custom selector**: This test case uses the custom ` $q(selector, context)` function to select the same element.

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

**JQuery**

Pros:

* Well-established library with a large user base.
* Robust testing and optimization.
* Good performance in many scenarios.

Cons:

* Additional overhead due to the library itself.
* Potential security concerns (e.g., XSS vulnerabilities).
* Might not be suitable for very small or simple applications.

**Custom selector**

Pros:

* Low overhead, as it's just a custom function.
* Highly customizable and adaptable to specific use cases.
* Can be more efficient in certain scenarios.

Cons:

* Requires more code and development effort.
* Might require additional testing and optimization.
* May not work well with other libraries or frameworks that use the same selector syntax.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that provides a convenient way to manipulate the Document Object Model (DOM) and handle events. Its core features include:

* Selectors for DOM elements
* Event handling and delegation
* AJAX support

In this benchmark, jQuery's `$.` function is used to select an element by its class name. This approach leverages jQuery's optimized performance and testing.

**Special JS feature:**

The custom selector uses a `$q(selector, context)` function, which is a common pattern for creating custom CSS-like selectors in JavaScript. This approach allows developers to write more flexible and efficient selection logic without relying on a specific library.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative ways to select elements or optimize performance, consider:

1. **Vanilla DOM manipulation**: Using native JavaScript methods like `document.querySelector()`, `querySelectorAll()`, and `getElementsByClassName()` can be an option.
2. **Other libraries**: Libraries like D3.js, Velociraptor, or FastDOM offer optimized selection and event handling mechanisms.
3. **Just-In-Time (JIT) compilers**: Some frameworks, like React or Angular, use JIT compilation to optimize performance.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs, and the best solution depends on your specific project requirements and constraints. MeasureThat.net's benchmarks can help you evaluate these options and make informed decisions about performance optimization.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JQuery	557017.8 Ops/sec
Custom selector	821806.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test112 (version: 0)

nothing

Comparing performance of: JQuery vs Custom selector

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JQuery

Custom selector

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):