Benchmark: Selector performance

HTML Preparation code:

<div id='h'>Hello</div>
<div class='w'>World</div>
<div class='w'>!</div>

Tests:

getElementById
document.getElementById('h');
querySelector
document.querySelector('#h');
getElementsByClassName
document.getElementsByClassName('w');
querySelectorAll
document.querySelectorAll('.w');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
getElementById
querySelector
getElementsByClassName
querySelectorAll

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and benchmark preparation code to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Name` field indicates that this benchmark is about comparing performance of different ways to select HTML elements using JavaScript.

The `Description` field is empty, which suggests that there isn't a detailed explanation for this benchmark. The `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code` fields are also empty, but the provided HTML code snippet will be used as input for the benchmark tests.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are four test cases:

1. `getElementById`: Tests the performance of using `document.getElementById()` to select an element with the ID "h".
2. `querySelector`: Tests the performance of using `document.querySelector()` to select an element based on a CSS selector.
3. `getElementsByClassName`: Tests the performance of using `document.getElementsByClassName()` to select elements with a specific class name ("w").
4. `querySelectorAll`: Tests the performance of using `document.querySelectorAll()` to select all elements that match a CSS selector.

**Library and Purpose**

The provided benchmark doesn't explicitly mention any libraries, but it's likely that these tests are running in the context of a browser environment (e.g., Chrome) where these methods are available. The `Document` object is used across all test cases, suggesting that the benchmark is testing the performance of different selector methods on the native Document API.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the provided benchmark test cases utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's built into the browser environment (e.g., async/await is not present).

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **`document.getElementById()`**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and efficient for direct ID-based selection.
	* Cons: May be slower than other methods when dealing with classes or attribute selectors.
2. **`document.querySelector()`**:
	* Pros: Flexible and powerful CSS selector syntax allows for more precise selections.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the complexity of the CSS parser, especially for complex selectors.
3. **`document.getElementsByClassName()`**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient when dealing with class-based selection.
	* Cons: Limited by its reliance on element names rather than IDs or attributes.
4. **`document.querySelectorAll()`**:
	* Pros: Similar to `querySelector`, but returns all matching elements, which can be useful for certain use cases.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the need to process all selected elements.

**Other Considerations**

When running performance benchmarks, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Browser version and platform
* Hardware configuration (CPU, RAM, etc.)
* JavaScript engine specifics (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey)
* Other concurrent processes or scripts that may impact performance

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative methods for comparing element selection performance, you might consider using other libraries or frameworks that provide faster and more efficient selector implementations. Some examples include:

* **Sizzle**: A widely used CSS selector library for the web.
* **CSS Selectors API**: A native API for manipulating and selecting elements based on CSS selectors.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, dependencies, or learning curves compared to the native browser methods being tested.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/75.0.3770.100 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 75 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
getElementById	3023239.8 Ops/sec
querySelector	1792627.2 Ops/sec
getElementsByClassName	2974943.8 Ops/sec
querySelectorAll	882788.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Selector performance (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: getElementById vs querySelector vs getElementsByClassName vs querySelectorAll

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

getElementById

querySelector

getElementsByClassName

querySelectorAll

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):