<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.6.1.min.js" integrity="sha256-o88AwQnZB+VDvE9tvIXrMQaPlFFSUTR+nldQm1LuPXQ=" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
$("div").each(function(i){
$(this).text("a");
});
[document.querySelectorAll("div")].map(e=>{
e.innerText = "a";
});
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
JQ | |
Vanilla |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
JQ | 66176.6 Ops/sec |
Vanilla | 127076.5 Ops/sec |
Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark.
Benchmark Definition:
The provided JSON defines two benchmarks, JQUERY VS VANILLA v-na0
, which compares the performance of jQuery (a JavaScript library) versus vanilla JavaScript (without any libraries). The benchmarks are designed to measure the execution time of specific tasks on a web page.
Options being compared:
Pros and Cons of each approach:
Library:
In this benchmark, jQuery is used in its each
method to iterate over a collection of HTML elements. The purpose of using jQuery is likely to demonstrate its capabilities for simple DOM manipulation tasks.
Special JS feature/syntax: None mentioned.
Now, let's take a look at the individual test cases:
Individual Test Cases:
each
method to iterate over a collection of HTML elements and updates their text content.$("<div>").each(function(i){ $(this).text("a"); });
This code is equivalent to the vanilla JavaScript version, but uses jQuery's convenience methods.
[...document.querySelectorAll("div")].map(e=>{ e.innerText = "a"; });
This code is a more verbose equivalent of the jQuery version, using native JavaScript methods.
Latest Benchmark Result: The latest benchmark result shows that the vanilla JavaScript approach outperforms jQuery in terms of execution time. The test results are likely influenced by various factors such as browser optimization, caching, and hardware performance.
Other alternatives:
If you were to consider alternative approaches for this benchmark, some options could be:
Keep in mind that each of these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark code and test setup.