Benchmark: jQuery Selector v2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.0/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="#test-root"><div class="test-child"></div></div>

Tests:

Inline Selector
jQuery('#test-root .test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');
Find
jQuery('#test-root').find('.test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');
Ignore root
jQuery('.test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Inline Selector
Find
Ignore root

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'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is testing the performance of jQuery's selector methods on a simple HTML structure. The test consists of three individual test cases:

1. **Inline Selector**: Tests the performance of using an inline selector (`jQuery('#test-root .test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');`).
2. **Find**: Tests the performance of using the `find()` method (`jQuery('#test-root').find('.test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');`).
3. **Ignore Root**: Tests the performance of ignoring the root element when selecting a descendant (`jQuery('.test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');`).

**Library and Purpose**

The benchmark uses jQuery, a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. The `find()` method is used to select elements within a parent element.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of `css()` method is not typically performance-critical, as it's primarily used for setting and getting CSS styles on an element.

**Comparison Options**

The three test cases compare the performance of different approaches:

1. **Inline Selector**: Uses an inline selector to select the `.test-child` element within the `#test-root` element.
2. **Find**: Uses the `find()` method to select all descendant elements of the `#test-root` element that match the `.test-child` class.
3. **Ignore Root**: Ignores the root element (`#test-root`) and selects only the `.test-child` elements directly.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Inline Selector**:
	* Pros: Can be faster due to fewer DOM traversals.
	* Cons: May not work as expected if the selector is complex or if the element is dynamically added/removed.
2. **Find**:
	* Pros: More flexible and reliable, as it can find elements even if they're dynamically added or removed.
	* Cons: May be slower due to more DOM traversals.
3. **Ignore Root**:
	* Pros: Can be faster when selecting only direct descendants of an element.
	* Cons: Requires careful consideration of the selector's scope and may not work as expected in certain situations.

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives for similar use cases might include:

1. Using a CSS class selector instead of inline selectors.
2. Using other jQuery methods, such as `closest()` or `siblings()`, to select elements.
3. Implementing custom DOM traversal logic using JavaScript.

These alternatives would depend on the specific requirements and constraints of the project.

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/112.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/112.0.1722.58

Browser/OS: Chrome 112 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Inline Selector	1215871.4 Ops/sec
Find	4071834.8 Ops/sec
Ignore root	604407.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery Selector v2 (version: 0)

testing .find vs inline selector

Comparing performance of: Inline Selector vs Find vs Ignore root

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Inline Selector

Find

Ignore root

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):