Benchmark: test23123 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

javascript1
document.getElementById('test');
javascript2
document.querySelector('#test');
jquery 1
$('#test')
jquery 2
$('document').find('#test');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
javascript1
javascript2
jquery 1
jquery 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON data represents a benchmark with four individual test cases, each testing different approaches to select an element from the DOM.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is not specified in this benchmark, but it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net often provides a default script preparation code or allows users to create their own. This code sets up the environment for the benchmark by including necessary libraries and initializing the testing framework.

In this case, the HTML preparation code includes jQuery version 3.3.1, which is used in two of the test cases (javascript2 and jquery 1).

**Test Cases**

Each test case is defined by a "Benchmark Definition" string that represents the JavaScript code to be executed. There are four test cases:

1. `document.getElementById('test');`
	* This test case uses the native DOM API to select an element by its ID.
	* Pros: Simple and efficient, as it only requires one function call.
	* Cons: May not work in older browsers that don't support modern DOM APIs.
2. `document.querySelector('#test');`
	* This test case uses the `querySelector` method of the Document object to select an element by its ID.
	* Pros: Similar to `getElementById`, but allows for more flexible CSS selectors.
	* Cons: May be slower than `getElementById` due to additional parsing and matching steps.
3. `$('#test')`
	* This test case uses jQuery's dollar sign alias to select an element by its ID.
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, as it leverages jQuery's optimized DOM selection algorithms.
	* Cons: Requires the presence of the jQuery library, which may not be available in all environments.
4. `$('document').find('#test');`
	* This test case uses jQuery's `find` method to select an element by its ID within a specific context (in this case, the document object).
	* Pros: Allows for more flexible selection of elements, but may be slower than other approaches due to additional parsing and matching steps.
	* Cons: Requires the presence of the jQuery library and has a slightly different syntax.

**Library**

In test cases javascript2 and jquery 1, jQuery is used as a library. jQuery provides an optimized DOM selection API that can significantly improve performance compared to native DOM APIs.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. The tests focus on the differences between various approaches to select elements from the DOM.

**Alternative Approaches**

Some alternative approaches to selecting elements from the DOM include:

1. `document.getElementsByTagName('div')` (returns an HTMLCollection of all div elements)
2. `document.querySelector('div')` (uses CSS selectors to find a specific div element)
3. Using a library like React or Angular to manage DOM updates

**Other Considerations**

When benchmarking JavaScript performance, it's essential to consider factors such as:

1. Browser support: Different browsers may have varying levels of support for modern DOM APIs and JavaScript features.
2. Cache and recompilation: Re-running benchmarks can lead to different results due to cache and recompilation effects.
3. Platform-specific optimizations: Some approaches may be optimized specifically for certain platforms or devices.

By understanding the differences between these approaches, developers can choose the most efficient method for their specific use cases and environments.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.146 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
javascript1	1955131.8 Ops/sec
javascript2	1372682.5 Ops/sec
jquery 1	700590.1 Ops/sec
jquery 2	490430.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test23123 (version: 0)

test

Comparing performance of: javascript1 vs javascript2 vs jquery 1 vs jquery 2

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

javascript1

javascript2

jquery 1

jquery 2

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):