Benchmark: jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById vs Document.querySelector ($ fix)

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.0.min.js"></script>
<div id="cadre_slider_decoration" class="twentytwenty-container">
								<img src="https://www.w3schools.com/css/trolltunga.jpg" id="image_slider_decoration_before" class="image_slider_decoration twentytwenty-before" style="clip: rect(0px 225.5px 301px 0px);">
								<img src="https://www.w3schools.com/css/trolltunga.jpg" id="image_slider_decoration_after" class="image_slider_decoration twentytwenty-after">
							<div class="twentytwenty-overlay"><div class="twentytwenty-before-label"></div><div class="twentytwenty-after-label"></div></div><div class="twentytwenty-handle" style="left: 225.5px;"><span class="twentytwenty-left-arrow"></span><span class="twentytwenty-right-arrow"></span></div></div>

Tests:

jQuery
var sliderW; for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++){ sliderW = jQuery("#image_slider_decoration_after"); }
getElementById
var sliderW; for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++){ sliderW = document.getElementById("image_slider_decoration_after") }
querySelector
var sliderW; for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++){ sliderW = document.querySelector("#image_slider_decoration_after") }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
getElementById
querySelector

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the speed of three different methods to retrieve an HTML element by its ID:

1. jQuery (`jQuery("#image_slider_decoration_after")`)
2. Vanilla JavaScript using `document.getElementById` (`document.getElementById("image_slider_decoration_after")`)
3. Vanilla JavaScript using `document.querySelector` with the `$ fix` (not specified in the provided code, but likely referring to the fact that it's used for selecting elements by ID) (`document.querySelector("#image_slider_decoration_after")`)

**Options compared:**

The benchmark is comparing the execution speed of these three methods. The options are:

* jQuery's `#image_slider_decoration_after` selector
* Vanilla JavaScript's `document.getElementById("image_slider_decoration_after")`
* Vanilla JavaScript's `document.querySelector("#image_slider_decoration_after")`

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **jQuery**: jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that provides a simplified way to manipulate HTML elements. Its advantage lies in its ability to simplify complex DOM interactions, but it also introduces an additional layer of overhead due to its abstraction.
	* Pros: Easy to use, efficient for frequent DOM updates
	* Cons: Overhead from the jQuery library, not suitable for simple or one-time uses
2. **document.getElementById**: This method is a part of the DOM API and allows direct access to elements by their ID.
	* Pros: Lightweight, no overhead from an external library
	* Cons: Can be verbose, requires knowing the correct DOM syntax
3. **document.querySelector**: This method is also part of the DOM API and provides more flexibility than `getElementById` when selecting elements by other criteria.
	* Pros: Flexible, can select elements by multiple attributes or values
	* Cons: May not be as efficient for simple ID-based selections

**Library considerations:**

The benchmark uses jQuery in one of its test cases. The library is included via an external script tag and is used to simplify the DOM interactions.

**Special JavaScript feature/syntax:**

None mentioned in the provided code. However, it's worth noting that `querySelector` can also be used with attribute selectors (e.g., `[data-attribute]`) or CSS selectors (e.g., `.class-selector`). These features are not explicitly used in the benchmark but demonstrate jQuery's flexibility.

**Alternatives:**

For similar benchmarks:

* Instead of using `document.getElementById`, you could use other DOM methods like `elementFromPoint` or `getElementsByClassName`.
* For a more lightweight alternative to jQuery, you might consider libraries like Lodash or Ramda.
* If you prefer a different JavaScript runtime or environment (e.g., Node.js), the benchmark results may vary.

In summary, the benchmark is testing the performance of three methods for retrieving HTML elements by their ID: jQuery's selector-based approach, Vanilla JavaScript's `document.getElementById`, and Vanilla JavaScript's `document.querySelector`. The test highlights the trade-offs between these approaches in terms of speed, complexity, and flexibility.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.122 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Mac OS X 10.14.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery	1.1 Ops/sec
getElementById	3.5 Ops/sec
querySelector	1.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById vs Document.querySelector ($ fix) (version: 0)

Comparing speed of getting element by id with jQuery vs Vanilla JS ($ fix)

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs getElementById vs querySelector

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

getElementById

querySelector

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):