Benchmark: Test Test Test - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="test"></div>
<div id="test|test:ab:3|test:4:b4-5|zda234dasdf-3asdfasdf:4545"></div>

Script Preparation code:

window.$$ = function(id) {
    return document.getElementById(id);
};

Tests:

test1
document.getElementById("test");
test2
document.getElementById("test|test:ab:3|test:4:b4-5|zda234dasdf-3asdfasdf:4545");
test3
$$("test");
test4
$$("test|test:ab:3|test:4:b4-5|zda234dasdf-3asdfasdf:4545");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test1
test2
test3
test4

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain the provided benchmark definition and its various components.

**What is tested:**
The test cases in MeasureThat.net are designed to measure the performance of JavaScript code, specifically in relation to retrieving elements from an HTML document using different methods. The tests compare the execution time and speed of various approaches to retrieve elements.

**Options being compared:**

1. **`document.getElementById()`**: This is a standard method for retrieving elements by their ID attribute.
2. **Custom `$$` function**: A custom function defined in the script preparation code, which takes an element ID as input and returns the corresponding HTML element.
3. **Template literals with nested IDs**: The test case uses template literals to construct complex IDs, such as "test|test:ab:3|test:4:b4-5|zda234dasdf-3asdfasdf:4545".

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. `document.getElementById()`:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and well-documented.
	* Cons: May be slower for complex IDs or large datasets due to the DOM search algorithm.
2. Custom `$` function:
	* Pros: Can potentially be faster than the standard method, especially for complex IDs, since it doesn't require searching the entire DOM tree.
	* Cons: Unfamiliar syntax and may not be as widely supported, which could lead to compatibility issues.
3. Template literals with nested IDs:
	* Pros: Allows for more flexible and dynamic construction of IDs, but can make the code harder to read and maintain.
	* Cons: May not be supported by older browsers or JavaScript engines that don't handle template literals correctly.

**Library usage:**
None of the test cases rely on any external libraries. The custom `$` function is defined in-house, while the standard `document.getElementById()` method uses the browser's native DOM API.

**Special JS features or syntax:**
The test case uses template literals (`"test|test:ab:3|test:4:b4-5|zda234dasdf-3asdfasdf:4545"`), which are a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). Template literals provide a way to embed expressions inside string literals, making it easier to construct dynamic strings.

**Other alternatives:**
Other methods for retrieving elements could be used, such as:

* `document.querySelector()` or `document.querySelectorAll()`
* CSS selectors
* Use of libraries like jQuery

However, these alternatives are not part of the provided benchmark definition and would require separate test cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/79.0.3945.88 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 79 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test1	4330238.0 Ops/sec
test2	4391389.5 Ops/sec
test3	2785013.0 Ops/sec
test4	2743118.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test Test Test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test1 vs test2 vs test3 vs test4

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test1

test2

test3

test4

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):