Benchmark: jQuery Selector - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.0/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="#test-root"><div class="test-child"></div></div>

Tests:

Inline Selector
jQuery('#test-root .test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');
Find
jQuery('#test-root').find('.test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Inline Selector
Find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**
The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches for selecting elements in jQuery: inline selectors (e.g., `#test-root .test-child`) versus the `find` method (e.g., `jQuery('#test-root').find('.test-child')`). The test measures how fast each approach can apply a CSS rule to an element.

**Options Compared**

* **Inline Selector**: Using a jQuery selector with the `#` and `.` notation to directly select elements from the DOM.
* **Find Method**: Using the `find` method, which searches for elements within a parent element that match a specified selector.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Inline Selector**:
	+ Pros: faster because it doesn't require creating a jQuery object or searching through the DOM tree. It directly accesses the element in memory.
	+ Cons: requires the `#` and `.` notation, which can be error-prone if not used correctly.
* **Find Method**:
	+ Pros: more flexible and easier to read than inline selectors, as it uses a descriptive selector that's easier to maintain.
	+ Cons: slower because it creates a jQuery object and searches through the DOM tree.

**Library and Its Purpose**
The `jQuery` library is used for both test cases. It provides a convenient way to manipulate elements in the DOM, as well as a set of selectors that can be used to target specific elements.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**
The benchmark uses jQuery's chaining method (`css('border', '1px solid red')`) to apply a CSS rule to an element. This is a common pattern in JavaScript development, where methods are chained together to perform complex operations on objects.

**Other Considerations**

* **DOM Manipulation**: Both test cases modify the DOM by adding or modifying elements.
* **Browser Consistency**: The benchmark uses Firefox 120 as the target browser, which might not represent other browsers' behavior. However, it's a good starting point for comparing JavaScript performance across different browsers.

**Alternatives**
For measuring JavaScript performance, alternatives to MeasureThat.net include:

* jsperf (now archived): A popular benchmarking tool that allows users to create and compare benchmarks.
* Benchmark.js: A lightweight, extensible benchmarking library for Node.js applications.
* browserbench: A web-based benchmarking tool developed by Google that measures the performance of JavaScript engines.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its strengths and weaknesses, and some might be better suited for specific use cases or programming languages.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/120.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Inline Selector	394054.4 Ops/sec
Find	2379504.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery Selector (version: 0)

testing .find vs inline selector

Comparing performance of: Inline Selector vs Find

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Inline Selector

Find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):