Benchmark: JQuery version speed test with 3.6.0

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.12.4/jquery.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq1124 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.4/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq224 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq331 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.5.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq351 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.6.0/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq360 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div>
  <ul id="menu">
    <li class="menu-item">1</li>
    <li class="menu-item">2</li>
    <li class="menu-item">3</li>
    <li class="menu-item">4</li>  
    <li class="menu-item">5</li>  
  </ul>
</div>

Script Preparation code:

function tests($) {
    $(".menu-item").eq(2).closest("ul").css({
      "background-color": "red"
    }).parent().css({
      "border": "1px solid blue"
    }).append($("<p></p>").text("Text.").css({
      "background-color": "green"
    })).end().end().remove();
  console.log('tests' + $);
}

Tests:

$jq1124
tests($jq1124);
$jq224
tests($jq224);
$jq331
tests($jq331);
$jq351
tests($jq351);
$jq360
tests($jq360);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
$jq1124
$jq224
$jq331
$jq351
$jq360

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its options.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is testing the speed of different versions of jQuery (a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation) when used in a specific script. The script is designed to modify an HTML structure, which triggers the execution of jQuery functions.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares the execution speed of six different versions of jQuery:

1. jQuery 1.12.4
2. jQuery 2.2.4
3. jQuery 3.3.1
4. jQuery 3.5.1
5. jQuery 3.6.0
6. (Note: There is a typo in the benchmark result, which refers to jQuery 360, but it's likely an error and should be 3.6.0)

**Pros and Cons of different approaches:**

Each version of jQuery has its own strengths and weaknesses:

* **Older versions (1.12.4, 2.2.4)**:
	+ Pros: May be faster for older browsers or systems that don't support newer JavaScript features.
	+ Cons: May not have the latest features or optimizations, making them less efficient in modern environments.
* **Middle versions (3.3.1, 3.5.1)**:
	+ Pros: Balance between performance and feature set, making them suitable for most use cases.
	+ Cons: May not be as fast as newer versions, which have optimized the codebase.
* **Latest version (3.6.0)**:
	+ Pros: Offers the latest features and optimizations, making it a good choice for modern applications.
	+ Cons: May require more resources or may not work in older browsers or systems.

**Libraries used:**

None of the benchmark test cases use any external libraries beyond jQuery itself.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark setup. However, the use of `$.noConflict(true)` is a common pattern in jQuery versions 1.9 and above, which helps to prevent conflicts with other libraries that may also use `$`.

**Alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternatives to MeasureThat.net, here are some options:

* **Benchmark.net**: Similar to MeasureThat.net, but with more advanced features and support for multiple languages.
* **jsbench.com**: A JavaScript benchmarking tool that allows you to create custom benchmarks and run them on different browsers.
* **BrowserStack**: A cloud-based testing platform that allows you to test your web applications on various browsers and devices.

Keep in mind that each tool has its own strengths and weaknesses, so it's essential to choose the one that best fits your needs.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/109.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 109 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
$jq1124	24835.2 Ops/sec
$jq224	34296.2 Ops/sec
$jq331	32920.7 Ops/sec
$jq351	32773.1 Ops/sec
$jq360	31523.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JQuery version speed test with 3.6.0 (version: 0)

this is an updated version of https://www.measurethat.net/Benchmarks/Show/2838/0/jquery-version-speed-test

Comparing performance of: $jq1124 vs $jq224 vs $jq331 vs $jq351 vs $jq360

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

$jq1124

$jq224

$jq331

$jq351

$jq360

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):