Benchmark: JQuery 3.x Test - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.6.1/jquery.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq361 = $.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/3.4.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq341 = $.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/3.2.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq321 = $.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>  
  </ul>
</div>

AخA
 
<script src='https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.6.1/jquery.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq361 = $.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/3.4.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq341 = $.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/3.2.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq321 = $.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>  
  </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' + $);
}

 
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:

JQuery 3.6.1
tests($jq361);
tests($jq361);
JQuery 3.5.1
tests($jq351);
tests($jq351);
JQuery 3.4.1
tests($jq341);
tests($jq341);
JQuery 3.3.1
tests($jq331);
tests($jq331);
JQuery 3.2.1
tests($jq321);
tests($jq321);

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
JQuery 3.6.1
JQuery 3.5.1
JQuery 3.4.1
JQuery 3.3.1
JQuery 3.2.1

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 YaBrowser/23.7.5.704 Yowser/2.5 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Yandex Browser 23 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JQuery 3.6.1	63464.2 Ops/sec
JQuery 3.5.1	62616.0 Ops/sec
JQuery 3.4.1	63663.7 Ops/sec
JQuery 3.3.1	68171.4 Ops/sec
JQuery 3.2.1	66881.4 Ops/sec

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

Benchmark Explanation

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares the performance of different versions of jQuery (3.x) in executing a specific test case.

Test Case Description

The test case consists of five individual tests, each representing a different version of jQuery:

JQuery 3.6.1
JQuery 3.5.1
JQuery 3.4.1
JQuery 3.3.1
JQuery 3.2.1

Each test case executes a JavaScript function, tests($jqX.x), where $jqX.x is the version number of jQuery being tested. The function performs a series of operations on an HTML document, including:

Manipulating the DOM
Appending and removing elements
Changing CSS properties

Options Compared

The benchmark compares the performance of different versions of jQuery by executing each test case multiple times (not specified in the provided data). The main options being compared are:

Version number: Each test case uses a specific version of jQuery (e.g., 3.6.1, 3.5.1, etc.)
Browser and device platform: The benchmark is executed on various browsers (Yandex Browser 23) with different devices (Desktop).
Operating system: All tests are run on Windows operating systems.

Pros and Cons of Different Approaches

Different approaches to benchmarking jQuery versions can be considered:

Version-specific testing: Testing each version separately, as done in the provided benchmark. Pros: allows for detailed comparison between versions. Cons: may not accurately represent real-world usage.
Cross-version testing: Comparing multiple versions simultaneously, like MeasureThat.net does. Pros: provides a broader understanding of performance differences. Cons: can be less precise due to variations in execution environments.
Mobile and desktop testing: Testing on different devices and platforms to simulate various user experiences. Pros: more representative of real-world usage. Cons: may require additional setup and resources.

Library and Purpose

The $.noConflict() method is used to clear the $ symbol, which is typically used as a global variable in jQuery. This allows for testing with different versions of jQuery without conflicts between them.

Special JS Features or Syntax

None are mentioned in the provided data.

Alternatives

Other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript libraries like jQuery include:

Benchmarking frameworks: Libraries like Benchmark.js, jsperf, or benchmark-timer can help simplify and standardize benchmarking processes.
Browser-based testing: Using tools like BrowserStack or Sauce Labs to test on multiple browsers and devices.
Emulation and virtualization: Tools like Node.js or Docker can be used to emulate different environments for testing.

These alternatives can provide additional flexibility, scalability, and accuracy in benchmarking JavaScript libraries like jQuery.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares the performance of different versions of jQuery (3.x) in executing a specific test case.

**Test Case Description**

The test case consists of five individual tests, each representing a different version of jQuery:

1. `JQuery 3.6.1`
2. `JQuery 3.5.1`
3. `JQuery 3.4.1`
4. `JQuery 3.3.1`
5. `JQuery 3.2.1`

Each test case executes a JavaScript function, `tests($jqX.x)`, where `$jqX.x` is the version number of jQuery being tested. The function performs a series of operations on an HTML document, including:

* Manipulating the DOM
* Appending and removing elements
* Changing CSS properties

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of different versions of jQuery by executing each test case multiple times (not specified in the provided data). The main options being compared are:

* Version number: Each test case uses a specific version of jQuery (e.g., `3.6.1`, `3.5.1`, etc.)
* Browser and device platform: The benchmark is executed on various browsers (Yandex Browser 23) with different devices (Desktop).
* Operating system: All tests are run on Windows operating systems.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

Different approaches to benchmarking jQuery versions can be considered:

* **Version-specific testing**: Testing each version separately, as done in the provided benchmark. Pros: allows for detailed comparison between versions. Cons: may not accurately represent real-world usage.
* **Cross-version testing**: Comparing multiple versions simultaneously, like MeasureThat.net does. Pros: provides a broader understanding of performance differences. Cons: can be less precise due to variations in execution environments.
* **Mobile and desktop testing**: Testing on different devices and platforms to simulate various user experiences. Pros: more representative of real-world usage. Cons: may require additional setup and resources.

**Library and Purpose**

The `$.noConflict()` method is used to clear the `$` symbol, which is typically used as a global variable in jQuery. This allows for testing with different versions of jQuery without conflicts between them.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None are mentioned in the provided data.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript libraries like jQuery include:

* **Benchmarking frameworks**: Libraries like Benchmark.js, jsperf, or benchmark-timer can help simplify and standardize benchmarking processes.
* **Browser-based testing**: Using tools like BrowserStack or Sauce Labs to test on multiple browsers and devices.
* **Emulation and virtualization**: Tools like Node.js or Docker can be used to emulate different environments for testing.

These alternatives can provide additional flexibility, scalability, and accuracy in benchmarking JavaScript libraries like jQuery.

Related benchmarks:

JQuery 3.x Test (version: 0)

Benchmark Comparison between Jquery 3.x

Comparing performance of: JQuery 3.6.1 vs JQuery 3.5.1 vs JQuery 3.4.1 vs JQuery 3.3.1 vs JQuery 3.2.1

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JQuery 3.6.1

JQuery 3.5.1

JQuery 3.4.1

JQuery 3.3.1

JQuery 3.2.1

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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