Benchmark: isOrIn alternatives

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.0.min.js"></script>

AخA
 
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.0.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

//Add 100,000 elements
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
for (var i=0; i<10; i++){
  var outDiv = document.createElement('div');
  for (var j=0; j<100; j++){
    var midDiv = document.createElement('div');
    for (var k=0; k<100; k++){
      var inDiv = document.createElement('div');
      if(i==6 && j==60){
        if(k==60)
          inDiv.id="one";
        else if(k==61)
          inDiv.id="two";
      }
      midDiv.appendChild(inDiv)
    }
    outDiv.appendChild(midDiv)
  }
  frag.appendChild(outDiv);
}
document.body.appendChild(frag);
var $innerOne = $(document.getElementById('one'));
var $body = $(document.body)

 
//Add 100,000 elementsvar frag = document.createDocumentFragment();for (var i=0; i<10; i++){  var outDiv = document.createElement('div');  for (var j=0; j<100; j++){    var midDiv = document.createElement('div');    for (var k=0; k<100; k++){      var inDiv = document.createElement('div');      if(i==6 && j==60){        if(k==60)          inDiv.id="one";        else if(k==61)          inDiv.id="two";      }      midDiv.appendChild(inDiv)    }    outDiv.appendChild(midDiv)  }  frag.appendChild(outDiv);}document.body.appendChild(frag);var $innerOne = $(document.getElementById('one'));var $body = $(document.body)

Tests:

is() or contains()
var found = $body.is($innerOne) || $.contains($body[0],$innerOne[0]);
var found = $body.is($innerOne) || $.contains($body[0],$innerOne[0]);
== or contains()
var body = $body[0]; var found = body==innerOne || $.contains(body,$innerOne[0]);
var body = $body[0]; var found = body==innerOne || $.contains(body,$innerOne[0]);
!!closest.length
var found = !!$innerOne.closest($body).length;
var found = !!$innerOne.closest($body).length;

== and parentNodes

var found = false;
var container = $body[0];
var contained = $innerOne[0];
if(contained===container){
 found=true;
} else if(container && contained){
  var pointer = contained;
  var parent = pointer.parentNode;
  
  while(parent && pointer!==container){
	if(parent === container){
		found=true;
      	break;
    }
    pointer = parent;
    parent = pointer.parentNode;
  }
      
}

 
var found = false;var container = $body[0];var contained = $innerOne[0];if(contained===container){ found=true;} else if(container && contained){  var pointer = contained;  var parent = pointer.parentNode;    while(parent && pointer!==container){    if(parent === container){        found=true;        break;    }    pointer = parent;    parent = pointer.parentNode;  }      }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
is() or contains()
== or contains()
!!closest.length
== and parentNodes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/60.0.3112.113 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 60 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
is() or contains()	598321.6 Ops/sec
== or contains()	0.0 Ops/sec
!!closest.length	325614.9 Ops/sec
== and parentNodes	2093276.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test for comparing different methods of checking whether an element is contained within another element in jQuery.

Options being compared:

is() method
contains() method (in jQuery 3.1.0)
Direct comparison using ==
Using the closest() method and checking its length

Pros and cons of each approach:

is() method: This is a built-in jQuery method that checks if an element is contained within another element. It's fast and efficient, but may not be as intuitive for developers who aren't familiar with it.
contains() method: This method was introduced in jQuery 3.1.0 and provides a more explicit way of checking containment. However, it may be slower than the is() method due to its additional logic.
Direct comparison using ==: This approach is simple but can lead to performance issues if not implemented correctly (e.g., when dealing with complex DOM structures). It's also less efficient than using jQuery methods.
Using closest() method and checking its length: This approach uses a more modern JavaScript technique to find the closest ancestor element and then checks its length. While it may be faster for simple cases, it can lead to performance issues when dealing with deep DOM structures or complex comparisons.

Library used:

The benchmark test uses jQuery 3.1.0, which is an older version of the library that still has some limitations compared to newer versions like jQuery 3.x or jQuery Sizzle.

Special JS feature or syntax:

None mentioned in this particular benchmark test. However, some future benchmarks might explore features like async/await, Promises, or modern JavaScript language features.

Other considerations:

The benchmark test creates a large DOM structure to simulate real-world scenarios and stress the compared methods.
The use of document.createDocumentFragment() and appending elements to it helps reduce DOM mutations and improves performance.
The benchmark test uses a Chrome browser with specific version (Chrome 60) and platform (Windows), which may not represent other browsers or platforms.

Other alternatives:

If you're looking for alternative methods to check element containment, here are a few options:

Using querySelector() and contains(): This method is more explicit than the is() method but may be slower due to its additional logic.
Using forEach() and checking childNodes: This approach iterates through the child nodes of an element to find containment, which can lead to performance issues with large DOM structures.
Implementing custom containment checks: Depending on your specific use case, you might need to implement a custom containment check using vanilla JavaScript or other libraries.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as efficient or intuitive as the compared methods in this benchmark test.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test for comparing different methods of checking whether an element is contained within another element in jQuery.

**Options being compared:**

1. `is()` method
2. `contains()` method (in jQuery 3.1.0)
3. Direct comparison using `==`
4. Using the `closest()` method and checking its length

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **`is()` method**: This is a built-in jQuery method that checks if an element is contained within another element. It's fast and efficient, but may not be as intuitive for developers who aren't familiar with it.
2. **`contains()` method**: This method was introduced in jQuery 3.1.0 and provides a more explicit way of checking containment. However, it may be slower than the `is()` method due to its additional logic.
3. **Direct comparison using `==`**: This approach is simple but can lead to performance issues if not implemented correctly (e.g., when dealing with complex DOM structures). It's also less efficient than using jQuery methods.
4. **Using `closest()` method and checking its length**: This approach uses a more modern JavaScript technique to find the closest ancestor element and then checks its length. While it may be faster for simple cases, it can lead to performance issues when dealing with deep DOM structures or complex comparisons.

**Library used:**

The benchmark test uses jQuery 3.1.0, which is an older version of the library that still has some limitations compared to newer versions like jQuery 3.x or jQuery Sizzle.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None mentioned in this particular benchmark test. However, some future benchmarks might explore features like async/await, Promises, or modern JavaScript language features.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark test creates a large DOM structure to simulate real-world scenarios and stress the compared methods.
* The use of `document.createDocumentFragment()` and appending elements to it helps reduce DOM mutations and improves performance.
* The benchmark test uses a Chrome browser with specific version (Chrome 60) and platform (Windows), which may not represent other browsers or platforms.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative methods to check element containment, here are a few options:

1. **Using `querySelector()` and `contains()`**: This method is more explicit than the `is()` method but may be slower due to its additional logic.
2. **Using `forEach()` and checking childNodes**: This approach iterates through the child nodes of an element to find containment, which can lead to performance issues with large DOM structures.
3. **Implementing custom containment checks**: Depending on your specific use case, you might need to implement a custom containment check using vanilla JavaScript or other libraries.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as efficient or intuitive as the compared methods in this benchmark test.

Related benchmarks:

isOrIn alternatives (version: 0)

Testing different methods of checking whether an element is or is in another element. Start from the position where you have jquery objects.

Comparing performance of: is() or contains() vs == or contains() vs !!closest.length vs == and parentNodes

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

is() or contains()

== or contains()

!!closest.length