Benchmark: not perf2 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

not css
$('.test:not(.magic)').length
filter
$('.test').filter(':not(.magic)').length
not js
$('.test').not('.magic').length

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
not css
filter
not js

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/81.0.4044.122 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 81 on Mac OS X 10.15.4

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
not css	340376.4 Ops/sec
filter	170687.6 Ops/sec
not js	173308.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain the benchmark and its various components, options, pros, cons, and considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that measures the performance of three different approaches to filter elements from a jQuery object: `.not()`, `.filter()`, and plain `.length` comparison. The test cases are designed to highlight the differences in execution speed between these methods.

**Options Compared**

1. `$.('.test:not(.magic)').length`: This method uses the `not()` function provided by jQuery to exclude elements with the class `magic`. It's an efficient way to filter elements, as it only checks for the presence of a class and returns a boolean value.
2. `$('.test').filter(':not(.magic)').length`: This method uses the `.filter()` method, which applies a callback function to each element in the set and returns a new array with only the elements that pass the test. The `:not(.magic)` pseudo-class is used to exclude elements with the class `magic`.
3. `$('.test').not('.magic').length`: This method uses the `.not()` function provided by jQuery to exclude elements with the specified CSS selector.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`.not()`**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and easy to read.
	* Cons: May not work as expected if the element is not present in the DOM or has multiple classes that need to be excluded.
2. **`.filter()`**:
	* Pros: More flexible than `.not()`, can handle complex filtering conditions, and works even if the element is not present in the DOM.
	* Cons: Slower than `.not()` due to the overhead of creating a new array and applying the callback function.
3. **Plain `.length` comparison**:
	* Pros: Fastest way to check for element presence, but may require multiple checks if the element has other classes or attributes that need to be excluded.
	* Cons: Not as readable or maintainable as the other two methods.

**Library and Purpose**

The provided JSON uses jQuery, a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. The `.not()` method is part of jQuery's functionality, while the `.filter()` method is also a standard jQuery feature. The plain `.length` comparison does not rely on any additional libraries or frameworks.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some older browsers may have different behavior when using certain methods like `.not()` and `.filter()`, so it's essential to test across various environments.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to filter elements, consider the following:

* Using a plain JavaScript `Array.prototype.filter()` method instead of jQuery's `.filter()`.
* Utilizing a library like Lodash or Ramda for more complex filtering conditions.
* Implementing your own custom filtering logic using `forEach` and conditional statements.

Keep in mind that each alternative approach has its pros and cons, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

not perf2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: not css vs filter vs not js

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

not css

filter

not js

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):