Benchmark: JQuery version speed test

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.12.4/jquery.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq1124 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.4/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq224 = $.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>
<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/1.12.4/jquery.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq1124 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.4/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq224 = $.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>
<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"
    }).end().end().remove();
}

​x
 
function tests($) {    $(".menu-item").eq(2).closest("ul").css({      "background-color": "red"    }).parent().css({      "border": "1px solid blue"    }).end().end().remove();}​

Tests:

$jq1124
tests($jq1124);
tests($jq1124);
$jq224
tests($jq224);
tests($jq224);
$jq331
tests($jq331);
tests($jq331);

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
$jq1124
$jq224
$jq331

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
$jq1124	586200.1 Ops/sec
$jq224	604518.1 Ops/sec
$jq331	605916.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):

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

What is being tested?

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that measures the performance of different versions of jQuery (a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation). The test case consists of three individual tests:

$jq1124: Tests jQuery version 1.12.4.
$jq224: Tests jQuery version 2.2.4.
$jq331: Tests jQuery version 3.3.1.

Options compared

The benchmark compares the performance of these three different jQuery versions, specifically in terms of execution speed (measured as "ExecutionsPerSecond").

Pros and cons of each approach:

Using a specific jQuery version: Using a specific version of jQuery provides a controlled environment for testing its performance. However, this might not reflect real-world scenarios where developers may use different versions or older/ newer versions.
- Pros: Provides a clear understanding of the performance differences between versions.
- Cons: May not accurately represent real-world usage patterns.
Using different browsers: The benchmark uses Chrome Mobile 130 on Android to test each version. This provides insights into how jQuery performs in mobile browsers, which is an important consideration for developers who work with mobile applications.
- Pros: Simulates a common use case for mobile development.
- Cons: Limited scope, as it only tests mobile browsers and does not consider desktop or other environments.

Library usage

In the provided HTML code, two instances of jQuery are loaded:

https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.12.4/jquery.min.js (jQuery version 1.12.4)
https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.4/jquery.min.js (jQuery version 2.2.4)

The $jq1124, $jq224, and $jq331 variables are used to access these jQuery instances in the test code.

Special JavaScript feature or syntax

There is no specific JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on measuring the performance of different jQuery versions using a simple test case.

Other alternatives

Alternative approaches for testing performance might include:

Benchmarking other libraries: Compare the performance of other popular DOM manipulation libraries, such as React or Vue.js.
Testing specific use cases: Create more complex test cases that simulate real-world scenarios, such as data binding, event handling, or animations.
Using a faster execution environment: Consider using a faster JavaScript engine or a server-side rendering approach to test performance in different environments.

Overall, the provided benchmark provides a simple and controlled way to compare the performance of different jQuery versions, which can be useful for developers who work with these libraries.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**What is being tested?**

1. `$jq1124`: Tests jQuery version 1.12.4.
2. `$jq224`: Tests jQuery version 2.2.4.
3. `$jq331`: Tests jQuery version 3.3.1.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three different jQuery versions, specifically in terms of execution speed (measured as "ExecutionsPerSecond").

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Using a specific jQuery version**: Using a specific version of jQuery provides a controlled environment for testing its performance. However, this might not reflect real-world scenarios where developers may use different versions or older/ newer versions.
	* Pros: Provides a clear understanding of the performance differences between versions.
	* Cons: May not accurately represent real-world usage patterns.
2. **Using different browsers**: The benchmark uses Chrome Mobile 130 on Android to test each version. This provides insights into how jQuery performs in mobile browsers, which is an important consideration for developers who work with mobile applications.
	* Pros: Simulates a common use case for mobile development.
	* Cons: Limited scope, as it only tests mobile browsers and does not consider desktop or other environments.

**Library usage**

In the provided HTML code, two instances of jQuery are loaded:

1. `https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.12.4/jquery.min.js` (jQuery version 1.12.4)
2. `https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.4/jquery.min.js` (jQuery version 2.2.4)

The `$jq1124`, `$jq224`, and `$jq331` variables are used to access these jQuery instances in the test code.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

There is no specific JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on measuring the performance of different jQuery versions using a simple test case.

**Other alternatives**

Alternative approaches for testing performance might include:

1. **Benchmarking other libraries**: Compare the performance of other popular DOM manipulation libraries, such as React or Vue.js.
2. **Testing specific use cases**: Create more complex test cases that simulate real-world scenarios, such as data binding, event handling, or animations.
3. **Using a faster execution environment**: Consider using a faster JavaScript engine or a server-side rendering approach to test performance in different environments.

Overall, the provided benchmark provides a simple and controlled way to compare the performance of different jQuery versions, which can be useful for developers who work with these libraries.

Related benchmarks:

JQuery version speed test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: $jq1124 vs $jq224 vs $jq331

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

$jq1124

$jq224

$jq331

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):