Benchmark: jquery multi-selector vs several selectors

HTML Preparation code:

<script
			  src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.1.0.js"
			  integrity="sha256-slogkvB1K3VOkzAI8QITxV3VzpOnkeNVsKvtkYLMjfk="
			  crossorigin="anonymous"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var element = $('<div class="foo"><span><p>Random things to select on</p></span></div>');

Tests:

multi-selector
element.is('.foo, .baz, .bar, .bang');
several selectors
element.is('.foo'); element.is('.bar'); element.is('.baz'); element.is('.bang');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
multi-selector
several selectors

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two different approaches to selecting elements on an HTML page using jQuery:

1. **Multi-selector**: Using a single method call with multiple selectors (`.foo, .baz, .bar, .bang`) to check if the element matches any of these classes.
2. **Several selectors**: Using separate method calls for each individual selector (`element.is('.foo')`, `element.is('.bar')`, etc.) to check if the element matches each class individually.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* **Multi-selector approach**: Using a single method call with multiple selectors.
* **Several selectors approach**: Using separate method calls for each individual selector.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Multi-selector approach**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more efficient, as it reduces the number of DOM queries.
		+ Can be easier to read and write, as it eliminates the need for multiple method calls.
	* Cons:
		+ May not perform as well in cases where only one class is applied, as the browser needs to evaluate all selectors.
		+ Can lead to slower performance if too many classes are used.
2. **Several selectors approach**
	* Pros:
		+ Performs better when only one or two classes are applied, as it reduces the number of DOM queries.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more method calls, which can be less efficient and harder to read.

**Library used**

The benchmark uses jQuery, a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. In this case, the `is()` method is used to check if an element matches a set of CSS selectors.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different approaches to selecting elements using jQuery.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative libraries or methods for selecting elements, here are some options:

* **CSS Selectors**: You can use CSS selectors directly in your HTML or JavaScript code to select elements.
* **Vanilla JavaScript**: You can use vanilla JavaScript functions like `querySelectorAll()` and `getElementsByTagName()` to select elements.
* **Other jQuery plugins**: There are other jQuery plugins, such as Sizzle, that provide alternative implementations of the `is()` method for selecting elements.

Keep in mind that each approach has its own trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
multi-selector	978108.1 Ops/sec
several selectors	236090.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jquery multi-selector vs several selectors (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: multi-selector vs several selectors

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

multi-selector

several selectors

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):