Benchmark: Cash VS Umbrella VS jquery VS vanilla selectors

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.5.1/jquery.min.js"><script>
<script>jQuery.noConflict();</script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/cash/8.1.0/cash.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/umbrella/3.2.3/umbrella.min.js"></script>
<div id="foo">Hello World</div>

Tests:

Vanilla getById
var text = document.getElementById("foo");
Vanilla QuerySelectorAll
var text = document.querySelectorAll("#foo");
cash ById
var text = $("#foo");
umbrella ById
var text = u("#foo");
jquery ById
var text = jQuery("#foo");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Vanilla getById
Vanilla QuerySelectorAll
cash ById
umbrella ById
jquery ById

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros/cons, library usage, special JS features, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test case "Cash VS Umbrella VS jquery VS vanilla selectors" is designed to compare the performance of four JavaScript selector libraries:

1. Vanilla (native JavaScript)
2. Cash
3. Umbrella
4. jQuery

Each library has a different approach to selecting elements in an HTML document.

**Options Compared**

Here's a brief overview of each option:

1. **Vanilla**: Uses native JavaScript methods, such as `document.getElementById()` and `document.querySelector()`, to select elements.
2. **Cash**: A lightweight selector library that provides a simplified API for selecting elements. It uses a similar syntax to jQuery but with fewer dependencies.
3. **Umbrella**: Another lightweight selector library that aims to be more efficient than Cash while maintaining a similar API.
4. **jQuery**: A popular JavaScript library that provides a wide range of DOM manipulation and selection methods, including `$('#foo')`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Vanilla**:
	* Pros: Native performance, minimal dependencies.
	* Cons: Less efficient than other libraries, less convenient syntax.
2. **Cash**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, easy to use, fast execution.
	* Cons: Limited feature set compared to jQuery and Umbrella.
3. **Umbrella**:
	* Pros: Fast execution, similar API to Cash, good balance between performance and convenience.
	* Cons: Smaller community and fewer resources available compared to Cash.
4. **jQuery**:
	* Pros: Comprehensive feature set, widely adopted, and well-maintained.
	* Cons: Larger bundle size, more dependencies, can be slower than native JavaScript.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark includes jQuery, Cash, Umbrella, and Vanilla as separate libraries, each with its own script tags in the HTML preparation code. This allows for a fair comparison of their performance.

**Special JS Features**

None are mentioned in this specific benchmark, but it's worth noting that other tests may include features like:

* Async execution
* Web Workers
* ES6+ syntax
* Browser-specific features (e.g., `requestAnimationFrame()`)

**Other Considerations**

When interpreting the results, consider the following:

* **Execution count**: The number of executions per second is a key metric in this benchmark.
* **Browser and device platform**: The results may vary across different browsers and devices due to factors like rendering engines, JavaScript engines, and hardware capabilities.
* **HTML structure**: The presence of elements with similar IDs or classes can affect the performance of each library.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative selector libraries, consider:

1. **Sizzle**: Another lightweight selector library that aims to be faster than jQuery.
2. **Sequan**: A newer selector library that provides a more efficient and convenient API.
3. **Query**: A minimalistic selector library with a focus on simplicity and performance.

Keep in mind that the choice of selector library depends on your specific use case, project requirements, and personal preferences.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.0 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 16 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Vanilla getById	11209997.0 Ops/sec
Vanilla QuerySelectorAll	2370874.8 Ops/sec
cash ById	3292116.8 Ops/sec
umbrella ById	1604608.9 Ops/sec
jquery ById	5360476.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Cash VS Umbrella VS jquery VS vanilla selectors (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Vanilla getById vs Vanilla QuerySelectorAll vs cash ById vs umbrella ById vs jquery ById

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Vanilla getById

Vanilla QuerySelectorAll

cash ById

umbrella ById

jquery ById

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):