Benchmark: jquery class selector vs queryselector vs getelementbyclassname

HTML Preparation code:

<div class="test">testinnerhtml</div>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Tests:

jQuery class
var a = jQuery('.test');
JS querySelector
var a = document.querySelector('.test');
JS getElementsByClassName
var a = document.getElementsByClassName('test');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery class
JS querySelector
JS getElementsByClassName

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/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 113 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery class	1160774.8 Ops/sec
JS querySelector	3980400.5 Ops/sec
JS getElementsByClassName	4780587.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches to select an HTML element with the class `test`:

1. **jQuery Class**: Using jQuery's `.class()` method to select the element.
2. **JS QuerySelector**: Using the native `querySelector()` function to select the element.
3. **JS getElementsByClassName**: Using the native `getElementsByClassName()` function to select the element.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches under the same conditions, using the same HTML structure and test case. The results will show which approach is fastest on average.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **jQuery Class**:
	* Pros: Easy to use, widely supported, and part of a larger JavaScript library.
	* Cons: Adds extra overhead due to the jQuery framework, may be slower than native methods for simple selections.
2. **JS QuerySelector**:
	* Pros: Native method, efficient, and lightweight.
	* Cons: Requires support for CSS selectors in JavaScript, may not work as expected with complex or non-standard selectors.
3. **JS getElementsByClassName**:
	* Pros: Simple, native method that doesn't require any additional libraries.
	* Cons: Returns a collection of elements, which can be slower than using a single element reference.

**Library Usage**

The `jQuery` library is used in the first test case to select the element using `.class()`. The `document.querySelector()` function is used in the second test case. No library is specified for the third test case.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these benchmark cases. They are straightforward, standard DOM manipulation examples.

**Alternative Approaches**

For this specific use case, other alternatives might include:

1. **JS querySelectorAll**: A more powerful version of `querySelector()`, which can select multiple elements using a single call.
2. **CSS Selectors**: Using CSS selectors to style the element directly in the HTML or via an external stylesheet.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may have different performance characteristics, depending on the specific use case and requirements.

I hope this explanation helps software engineers understand the benchmark and its objectives!

Related benchmarks:

jquery class selector vs queryselector vs getelementbyclassname (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jQuery class vs JS querySelector vs JS getElementsByClassName

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery class

JS querySelector

JS getElementsByClassName

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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