Benchmark: jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById

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
var el = $("#testElement")[0]; var className = el.className;
Vanilla JS
var el = document.querySelector('#testElement'); var className = el.className;

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 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares the speed of getting an element by its `id` using two approaches:

1. **jQuery**: A popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation.
2. **Vanilla JS**: The standard JavaScript syntax without any external libraries.

**Script Preparation Code**

There is no script preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark starts with a blank slate and runs the test cases in sequence.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a reference to jQuery version 3.1.0 and an `<div>` element with `id` set to "testElement".

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **jQuery**: This test case uses jQuery's `$` function to select the element by its `id`. The code also extracts the `className` property of the selected element.
2. **Vanilla JS**: This test case uses JavaScript's built-in `document.querySelector()` method to select the element by its `id`. It then extracts the `className` property of the selected element.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **jQuery**
	* Pros:
		+ Faster execution time due to jQuery's optimized DOM traversal algorithms.
		+ Easier to use, especially for complex DOM manipulations.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds extra HTTP request overhead due to the jQuery library being loaded.
		+ May not be suitable for small-scale or performance-critical applications.
2. **Vanilla JS**
	* Pros:
		+ No additional HTTP request overhead.
		+ More control over DOM traversal and manipulation algorithms.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more code and expertise to implement correctly.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation, event handling, and Ajax interactions. Its main purpose is to simplify DOM interactions by providing a consistent API across different browsers and versions.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None mentioned**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that require explanation.

**Other Alternatives**

For getting an element by its `id`, other alternatives include:

* **document.getElementById()**: A built-in JavaScript method that returns the first element with a matching `id` attribute.
* **Element.prototype.querySelector()`: Another built-in JavaScript method that selects elements based on various selectors, including `#` for IDs.

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of using jQuery's `$` function versus Vanilla JS's `document.querySelector()` method to get an element by its `id`. The pros and cons of each approach have been discussed, highlighting the trade-offs between speed, ease of use, and control.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Ubuntu Chromium/52.0.2743.116 Chrome/52.0.2743.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chromium 52 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery	517683.3 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS	1923925.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById (version: 0)

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

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs Vanilla JS

Created: 8 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 25 days ago):