Benchmark: Test de By Id - MeasureThat.net

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>

Script Preparation code:

var el;
var map = new Map();
//a cache :P
function id(theId){
  if(!map[theId]){
	el = document.getElementById(theId);
    map[theId] = el;
	} else {
 		el = map[theId]; 
	}
  return el;
}

Tests:

Vanilla JS
var el = id("testElement"); var className = el.className;
Jquery
var el = $("#testElement")[0]; var className = el.className;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Vanilla JS
Jquery

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 dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the performance of two approaches: Vanilla JS and jQuery. The benchmark is designed to measure the execution speed of retrieving an element's class name using each approach.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is where both approaches are defined:
```javascript
var el;
var map = new Map();

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a simple `<div>` element with the ID "testElement".
```html
<div id="testElement"></div>
```
This element will be used to test the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Vanilla JS**
```javascript
var el = id("testElement");
var className = el.className;
```
This code calls the `id` function with the ID "testElement" and assigns the result to `el`. It then retrieves the class name of `el` using the `className` property.

2. **jQuery**
```javascript
$("#testElement")[0].className;
```
This code uses jQuery to select the element with ID "testElement", retrieves the first element in the selection (which is the single element), and then accesses its `className` property.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **Vanilla JS**: This approach relies on the browser's DOM API to retrieve the element. It provides direct access to the element without any additional overhead.
	+ Pros: Low overhead, no dependencies on external libraries.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the need to query the DOM.
* **jQuery**: This approach uses jQuery to select the element and then accesses its `className` property. It provides a convenient way to access elements and their properties.
	+ Pros: Convenient, easy to use, and often faster than Vanilla JS due to the optimized selection process.
	+ Cons: Requires an additional library (jQuery) and may introduce some overhead.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation, event handling, and other common tasks. It provides a convenient way to access elements using its `select` methods.

In this benchmark, the use of jQuery introduces an additional layer of complexity and potential performance overhead compared to Vanilla JS. However, jQuery's optimized selection process can often result in faster execution speeds.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. It relies solely on standard JavaScript syntax and features.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* **Sizzle**: Sizzle is another popular library for selecting elements in the DOM. It's often considered faster than jQuery but has a steeper learning curve.
* **CSS Selectors**: You can also use CSS selectors to select elements directly, which can be faster than both Vanilla JS and jQuery. However, this approach requires more knowledge of CSS selectors and may not be as convenient.

Keep in mind that the performance difference between these approaches can vary depending on the specific use case, browser, and JavaScript engine.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:81.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/81.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 81 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Vanilla JS	32978534.0 Ops/sec
Jquery	3794632.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test de By Id (version: 0)

test

Comparing performance of: Vanilla JS vs Jquery

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Vanilla JS

Jquery

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):