Benchmark: JQUERY VS VANILLA v-na3

HTML Preparation code:

<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>

Tests:

JQ
$("div").each(function(i){ $(this).text("a"); });
Vanilla
[...document.querySelectorAll("div")].map(e=>{ e.innerText = "a"; });
Vanilla No Map
let divs = document.querySelectorAll("div"); for(let i=0;i<divs.length;i++){ divs[i].innerText = "a"; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JQ
Vanilla
Vanilla No Map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Overview**

This benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using jQuery (a popular JavaScript library) and using vanilla JavaScript (the standard JavaScript syntax). The test cases are designed to execute a simple loop that sets the text content of multiple HTML elements to "a".

**Options Compared**

There are three options being compared:

1. **JQuery**: Uses jQuery's `.each()` method to iterate over the elements, which is more concise and often preferred for its ease of use.
2. **Vanilla No Map**: Uses a traditional `for` loop with indexing (`i`) to iterate over the elements.
3. **Vanilla With Map**: Uses the `Array.prototype.map()` method, similar to jQuery's `.each()`, but applies it directly to an array of elements.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

* **JQuery**:
	+ Pros: Concise code, easy to read and maintain.
	+ Cons: Adds an extra library dependency, which may not be desirable in all cases. Can also lead to slower performance due to the additional overhead of jQuery.
* **Vanilla No Map**:
	+ Pros: Fast execution, as it avoids the overhead of creating a new array or using a loop.
	+ Cons: More verbose code, can be less readable and maintainable for complex iterations.
* **Vanilla With Map**:
	+ Pros: Similar performance to Vanilla No Map, but with slightly more concise code.
	+ Cons: Creates an additional array, which may not be desirable in all cases.

**Library and Syntax Considerations**

The test case uses jQuery's `.each()` method. In this context, it's likely that the library is included using a script tag (as shown in the HTML preparation code). The use of `.each()` suggests that the test author wants to evaluate the performance impact of using a specific library.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

Some other alternatives for iterating over elements could be:

* **Using `for...of` loops**: A more modern and concise way to iterate over arrays and iterable objects.
* **Using `Array.prototype.forEach()`**: Another alternative to `.each()` that is often used with jQuery, but can also be used standalone.

In terms of non-JavaScript alternatives, the benchmark only focuses on JavaScript performance comparisons. However, if you're interested in exploring other optimization techniques or testing frameworks, there are many options available, such as:

* **Benchmarking libraries**: e.g., Benchmark.js, JS-Bench
* **Test-driven development (TDD) and behavior-driven development (BDD)** tools

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/106.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 106 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JQ	115397.8 Ops/sec
Vanilla	211781.5 Ops/sec
Vanilla No Map	281155.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JQUERY VS VANILLA v-na3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JQ vs Vanilla vs Vanilla No Map

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JQ

Vanilla

Vanilla No Map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):