Benchmark: Testing parent container 2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.0.min.js"></script>

<div id="parent" class="test class list classes">
	<div id="testElement" class="test class list classes child c2"></div>
  	<div id="testElement" class="test class list classes child c1"></div>
   	<div id="testElement" class="test class list classes abc"></div>
    <div id="testElement" class="test class list classes abc"></div>
  	<div id="testElement" class="test class list classes child c2"></div>
  	<div id="testElement" class="test class list classes child c1"></div>
</div>

Tests:

jQuery
var one = $("#parent").find(".c1") var two = $("#parent").find(".c2")
getElementById
var one = document.getElementsByClassName("c1") var two = document.getElementsByClassName("c2")
jquery2
var one = $(".c1") var two = $(".c2")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
getElementById
jquery2

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 test.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The website provides a JSON representation of the benchmark, which includes:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This is not provided in the given example, but it likely contains code that sets up any dependencies or libraries needed for the benchmark.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This HTML snippet creates a container element with multiple child elements, each having different class names (e.g., `c1`, `c2`, etc.). The goal of the benchmark is to measure the performance of finding elements by ID using different approaches.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark has three test cases:

### jQuery

```javascript
var one = $( "#parent" ).find( ".c1" );
var two = $( "#parent" ).find( ".c2" );
```

*   **Purpose**: Find all child elements with class `c1` and `c2`, respectively, within the container element with ID `parent`. jQuery uses a selector to achieve this.
*   **Library**: jQuery (version 3.1.0)
*   **Pros**:
    *   jQuery provides a simple and concise way to select elements by class or other attributes.
    *   It also includes features like DOM manipulation and event handling, which can be beneficial for complex web applications.
*   **Cons**:
    *   Adding more library dependencies to the benchmark.
    *   Some users may find it harder to optimize jQuery's performance due to its extensive functionality.

### getElementById

```javascript
var one = document.getElementsByClassName( "c1" );
var two = document.getElementsByClassName( "c2" );
```

*   **Purpose**: Find all child elements with class `c1` and `c2`, respectively, within the container element. This approach relies on the `getElementsByClassName()` method, which returns a live HTMLCollection of elements that match the specified class name.
*   **Library/Functionality**: Native JavaScript functionality (i.e., no external library is required)
*   **Pros**:
    *   No additional library dependencies.
    *   Can be more straightforward to optimize performance, as it only involves native JavaScript functions.

### jquery2

```javascript
var one = $( ".c1" );
var two = $( ".c2" );
```

*   **Purpose**: Similar to jQuery's `find()` method, but uses the `$` function directly on the elements instead of applying a selector.
*   **Library/Functionality**: jQuery (version 3.1.0)
*   **Pros**:
    *   Less dependency-heavy compared to jQuery's `find()` approach.
    *   Still leverages jQuery's DOM manipulation capabilities.

### Comparison

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of these three approaches:

*   jQuery's `find()` method
*   Native JavaScript's `getElementsByClassName()` method
*   A simplified version of jQuery using the `$` function directly on elements

**Other Considerations**

When evaluating this benchmark, consider the trade-offs between library usage and native functionality. Some developers might prefer to use libraries for their convenience and extensive feature sets, while others prioritize simplicity and performance.

For optimal results in a real-world application:

*   If you need robust DOM manipulation features, jQuery or similar libraries can be beneficial.
*   For smaller applications with simple requirements, native JavaScript's `getElementsByClassName()` method might provide sufficient performance.

Keep in mind that the specific results of this benchmark depend on factors such as browser versions, device platforms, and operating systems.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/90.0.4430.72 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 90 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery	320688.9 Ops/sec
getElementById	2075029.6 Ops/sec
jquery2	426860.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Testing parent container 2 (version: 0)

Comparing speed of getting element by id with jQuery vs Vanilla JS with getElementById and querySelector

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs getElementById vs jquery2

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

getElementById

jquery2

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):