Benchmark: children vs find < in jQuery

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="#parent">
  <div class="child">Child Class 1</div>
  <div class="child">Child Class 2</div>
  <span>Child element 3</span>
  <span>Child element 4</span>
  <label data-attr="value">Child Attribute value 5</label>
  <label data-attr="value">Child Attribute value 6</label>
  <p>
     <span class="child" data-attr="value">Grandchild 7 (must not be matched)</div>
  </p>
</div><script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.4.1/jquery.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

Benchmark.prototype.setup = function() {

          
  var parent = $("#parent")

        
  };

Tests:

parent.children()
var results = parent.children();
parent.find("> *")
var results = parent.find("> *");
parent.children(".child")
var results = parent.children(".child");
parent.find("> .child")
var results = parent.find("> .child");
parent.children("span")
var results = parent.children("span");
parent.find("> span")
var results = parent.find("> span");
parent.children("[data-attr=value]")
var results = parent.children("[data-attr=value]");
parent.find("> [data-attr=value]")
var results = parent.find("> [data-attr=value]");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
parent.children()
parent.find("> *")
parent.children(".child")
parent.find("> .child")
parent.children("span")
parent.find("> span")
parent.children("[data-attr=value]")
parent.find("> [data-attr=value]")

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its various components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two jQuery methods: `find()` and `children()`. The tests are run on a DOM structure that contains various elements, including child nodes, span elements, and a label with an attribute.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code sets up the test environment by defining a `parent` variable that references a DOM element with the ID "parent". This parent element contains multiple child nodes, including two div elements with class "child", two span elements, and a p element with a grandchild node.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code defines the structure of the test environment. It includes an HTML snippet that creates the parent element and its child nodes, as well as a reference to the jQuery library.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are eight individual test cases:

1. `parent.children()`
2. `parent.find("> *")`
3. `parent.children(".child")`
4. `parent.find("> .child")`
5. `parent.children("span")`
6. `parent.find("> span")`
7. `parent.children("[data-attr=value]")`
8. `parent.find("> [data-attr=value]")`

Each test case defines a benchmark definition that specifies the method to be tested and the input selector.

**Library**

The benchmark uses jQuery, which is a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's typically used in web development. However, it's worth noting that some of the selectors used in the `find()` method may not work as expected due to browser quirks (e.g., the `"> *"` selector).

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares the performance of two methods:

1. `children()`: Returns a DOM NodeList containing all child nodes of the specified element.
2. `find("> *")`: Returns a DOM NodeList containing elements that match the specified selector.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* `children()`:
	+ Pros: Faster and more efficient, especially for smaller datasets.
	+ Cons: Can be slower for large datasets due to the need to traverse all child nodes.
* `find("> *")`:
	+ Pros: More flexible and allows for more complex selectors.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than `children()` for smaller datasets.

**Performance Results**

The benchmark results show the execution time of each test case on multiple browsers. The performance differences between `children()` and `find("> *")` are generally small, but there may be some variation depending on the browser and dataset size.

Overall, this benchmark provides a useful comparison of two jQuery methods that can help web developers optimize their code for better performance.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 19 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
parent.children()	12658435.0 Ops/sec
parent.find("> *")	58774416.0 Ops/sec
parent.children(".child")	4600188.5 Ops/sec
parent.find("> .child")	57649436.0 Ops/sec
parent.children("span")	4289934.5 Ops/sec
parent.find("> span")	59190068.0 Ops/sec
parent.children("[data-attr=value]")	3131188.8 Ops/sec
parent.find("> [data-attr=value]")	59392000.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

children vs find < in jQuery (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: parent.children() vs parent.find("> *") vs parent.children(".child") vs parent.find("> .child") vs parent.children("span") vs parent.find("> span") vs parent.children("[data-attr=value]") vs parent.find("> [data-attr=value]")

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

parent.children()

parent.find("> *")

parent.children(".child")

parent.find("> .child")

parent.children("span")

parent.find("> span")

parent.children("[data-attr=value]")

parent.find("> [data-attr=value]")

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):