Benchmark: jQuery needs cached selectors.

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.1.min.js"></script>
<div id="testElement"></div>

Tests:

Bad
for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { $('#testElement').append(''); if (i % 3 && i % 5) { $('#testElement').append(i); } else { if( i % 3 == 0 ) { $('#testElement').append('Fizz'); } if( i % 5 == 0 ) { $('#testElement').append('Buzz'); } if (i % 3 && i % 5) { $('#testElement').append(i); } } $('#testElement').append(''); }
Better
var body = $("#testElement"); for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { body.append(''); if (i % 3 && i % 5) { body.append(i); } else { if( i % 3 == 0 ) { body.append('Fizz'); } if( i % 5 == 0 ) { body.append('Buzz'); } if (i % 3 && i % 5) { body.append(i); } } body.append(''); }
Best
var res = ""; for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { res += ''; if (i % 3 && i % 5) { res += i; } else { if( i % 3 == 0 ) { res += 'Fizz'; } if( i % 5 == 0 ) { res += 'Buzz'; } if (i % 3 && i % 5) { res += i; } } res += ''; } var body = $("#testElement"); body.append(res);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Bad
Better
Best

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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test case is designed to measure the performance of caching in JavaScript when using jQuery selectors. The benchmark compares three different approaches:

1. **Bad**: This approach appends elements directly to the DOM without caching or optimization.
2. **Better**: In this approach, jQuery's `$` function is used to select an element, and then append() method is called on that element. However, the `body` variable is not assigned until after appending all elements, which is inefficient.
3. **Best**: This approach uses a string concatenation technique to build the HTML content, and only assigns it to the `$` function once.

**Comparison of Approaches**

1. **Bad**: This approach has the worst performance because it:
	* Appends elements directly to the DOM without caching or optimization.
	* Calls `append()` method multiple times on the same element, which can cause unnecessary DOM mutations.
2. **Better**: This approach is slightly better than the Bad approach but still inefficient due to the following reasons:
	* Calling `$` function and `body.append()` method multiple times is unnecessary.
	* Assigning the `body` variable after appending all elements causes an extra assignment, which can lead to slower execution.
3. **Best**: This approach outperforms the other two approaches because it:
	+ Uses a string concatenation technique to build the HTML content, reducing the number of DOM mutations.
	+ Only assigns the concatenated string to the `$` function once, minimizing unnecessary assignments.

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used as a library. The `$` function is used to simplify DOM manipulation and provide an abstraction layer for working with elements.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are explicitly mentioned in the benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches could be considered to optimize caching and performance:

1. **Caching**: Implementing explicit caching mechanisms, such as storing frequently accessed data in a cache object.
2. **Minification and Compression**: Minifying and compressing code can reduce the size of the JavaScript bundle, leading to faster execution times.
3. **Parallelization**: Using techniques like parallel processing or concurrent execution to take advantage of multi-core processors.

By understanding these approaches and their trade-offs, developers can optimize their own JavaScript performance and caching strategies.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:79.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/79.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 79 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Bad	36.6 Ops/sec
Better	22.7 Ops/sec
Best	474.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery needs cached selectors. (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Bad vs Better vs Best

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Bad

Better

Best

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):