Benchmark: Test Nick - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.0.min.js"></script>
<div id="testElement"></div>

Tests:

jQuery
jQuery('body').data('default-currency');
Vanilla JS
document.body.getAttribute('data-default-currency');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
Vanilla JS

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the speed of getting an element by its `id` using jQuery versus Vanilla JavaScript (Vanilla JS). The test measures how many executions per second each method can handle.

**Library Used: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation. In this benchmark, it's used to get an element by its `id`. The line of code being tested with jQuery is: `jQuery('body').data('default-currency');`.

The purpose of this test case is likely to evaluate how efficient jQuery is when dealing with data attributes on elements.

**Vanilla JavaScript (Vanilla JS)**

The alternative method for getting an element by its `id` using Vanilla JS is: `document.body.getAttribute('data-default-currency');`. This approach uses the built-in `getAttribute()` method of the Document object to retrieve the value of a named attribute on an element.

Pros and Cons:

* **Pros of Vanilla JS**:
	+ No external library dependencies.
	+ Can be faster since it's a native DOM method.
* **Cons of Vanilla JS**:
	+ May not work if the `data` attribute is set to an empty string or not present at all.
	+ Requires using `getAttribute()` which might incur some overhead.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses Chrome 70 as the browser, so the results may not be representative for other browsers.
* Since this is a simple test case, it's likely that other factors like caching and execution order don't significantly impact the results.
* It's worth noting that in modern JavaScript development, using libraries like jQuery or frameworks might be necessary for complex applications. However, for simple cases like this one, Vanilla JS can be a more lightweight alternative.

**Alternatives**

If you want to test other approaches or methods, here are some alternatives:

* Using `document.getElementById()` (Vanilla JS) or `$()` (jQuery) to get an element by its ID.
* Testing with different browser versions or operating systems to see how the results compare across different platforms.
* Comparing the performance of using `data` attributes versus other attribute types like `class` or `style`.
* Evaluating the performance impact of adding a small amount of data or HTML structure to the test case.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in this benchmark and provides some insights into the pros and cons of different approaches!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.77 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 70 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery	0.0 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS	3165496.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test Nick (version: 0)

Comparing speed of getting element by id with jQuery vs Vanilla JS

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs Vanilla JS

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

Vanilla JS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):