Benchmark: JQuery: find elements which does not need have value vs not function vs not selector

HTML Preparation code:

<select id="items">
  <option value="1"></option>
  <option value="2"></option>
  <option value="3"></option>
  <option value="4"></option>
  <option value="5"></option>
  <option value="6"></option>
  <option value="7"></option>
  <option value="8"></option>
  <option value="9"></option>
  <option value="10"></option>
</select>

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.4.1/jquery.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var $itemsElement = $("#items");

Tests:

using not equals to attribute
$itemsElement.find("option[value!='5']");
using JQuery function
$itemsElement.find("option").not("[value='5']");
using not selector
$itemsElement.find("option:not([value='5'])");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
using not equals to attribute
using JQuery function
using not selector

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 what is being tested in the provided JSON.

The test case measures the performance of three different approaches for finding elements in a HTML select element:

1. **Using not equals to attribute**: This approach uses the `find()` method with an attribute selector that excludes elements with a specific value (in this case, `'5'`).
2. **Using JQuery function**: This approach uses the `not()` function provided by the jQuery library to exclude elements with a specific value (again, `'5'`).
3. **Using not selector**: This approach uses the `find()` method with a custom attribute selector that excludes elements with a specific value (in this case, `[value!='5']`).

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

**Using not equals to attribute**

Pros:

* Simple and easy to understand
* Does not require jQuery library
* Can be easily optimized for certain use cases

Cons:

* May not be as efficient as other approaches for larger datasets
* Requires careful consideration of attribute names and values

**Using JQuery function**

Pros:

* Provides a convenient way to exclude elements with specific attributes
* Optimized for performance by the jQuery team
* Easy to read and maintain

Cons:

* Requires including the jQuery library, which can increase page load time
* May not be as efficient as other approaches for very large datasets

**Using not selector**

Pros:

* Customizable and flexible attribute selectors
* Can be optimized for specific use cases
* Does not require jQuery library (unless using a third-party library that implements this syntax)

Cons:

* May be less intuitive or readable than other approaches, especially for those without experience with custom attribute selectors
* Requires careful consideration of attribute names and values

Now, let's discuss the libraries used in the benchmark:

**jQuery**

The `$(selector)` notation is used to select elements from the DOM. The `find()` method is then used to filter elements based on a specific attribute value.

In this benchmark, jQuery is used as the underlying library for selecting elements and filtering results.

**No additional libraries are required**

All three approaches rely only on the native JavaScript APIs (for `find()` and `not()` methods) or custom attribute selectors. No other libraries are required for this benchmark.

Now, let's discuss any special JS features or syntax:

None of the approaches use any special JS features or syntax that would impact performance significantly. However, it's worth noting that using custom attribute selectors can be affected by browser support and compatibility issues.

Finally, here are some alternative approaches to measuring this kind of performance benchmark:

* **Native JavaScript `find()` method**: Without jQuery library, you could measure the performance of native `find()` method for filtering elements based on specific attributes.
* **Third-party libraries with similar APIs**: Other libraries that provide similar attribute filtering capabilities (e.g., Sizzle, CSS Selectors) could be used to compare their performance with jQuery.
* **Custom implementation**: You could implement your own custom filtering logic using JavaScript and measure its performance.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 78 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
using not equals to attribute	37994.0 Ops/sec
using JQuery function	57138.2 Ops/sec
using not selector	119964.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JQuery: find elements which does not need have value vs not function vs not selector (version: 0)

look the best solution for find elements, which do not have need value

Comparing performance of: using not equals to attribute vs using JQuery function vs using not selector

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

using not equals to attribute

using JQuery function

using not selector

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):