Benchmark: jQuery Selector #2

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 class="test2"></div></div></div>

Tests:

Inline Selector
jQuery('#test-root .test-child > .test2').css('border', '1px solid red');
Find
jQuery('#test-root').find('.test-child > .test2').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 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and understand what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two different approaches to select an HTML element using jQuery: inline selectors (also known as attribute selectors) versus the `.find()` method.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Inline Selector**: This approach uses a string literal to specify the selector, which includes the `#` symbol for ID selection and the space character (` ` ) for child selection.
2. **`.find()` Method**: This approach uses the `.find()` method to select the descendant elements of an element with a specific class or ID.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Inline Selector**:
	+ Pros: Typically faster, as it can be optimized by the browser's DOM parser.
	+ Cons: Can lead to less readable code, especially for complex selectors.
* `.find()` Method**:
	+ Pros: More readable and maintainable, as it clearly expresses the intent of finding descendant elements.
	+ Cons: May incur a small performance overhead due to the extra function call.

**Library and Its Purpose**

The benchmark uses jQuery, which is a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation. The `.find()` method is part of the jQuery API and allows you to select descendant elements based on a CSS selector or an attribute value.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There isn't any specific special feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark that requires special attention. However, it's worth noting that the use of `#` symbols for ID selection is a common practice in jQuery selectors.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to select HTML elements, here are some other options:

* Using vanilla JavaScript and the `querySelector()` or `querySelectorAll()` methods.
* Utilizing CSS selectors with the `getElementsByClassName()` or `getElementById()` methods.
* Leveraging modern JavaScript libraries like React or Angular for template-based rendering.

These alternatives might have different performance characteristics, readability benefits, or ease of use compared to jQuery's `.find()` method and inline selectors.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_10_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 53 on Mac OS X 10.10.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Inline Selector	96660.1 Ops/sec
Find	1204995.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery Selector #2 (version: 0)

testing .find vs inline selector child

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 26 days ago):