Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
TestClick 2
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
JQuery vs Raw
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.0.min.js"></script> <h1 id="hi"/>
Tests:
JQuery
$("#hi").click()
Raw
document.getElementById("hi").click()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
JQuery
Raw
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explore what's tested on this benchmark. **Overview** MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a test case, which includes two individual test cases: "JQuery" and "Raw". These test cases compare two different approaches to simulate a click event on an HTML element with the id "hi". **Script Preparation Code** The script preparation code is empty for both test cases, indicating that no additional setup or initialization is required. **Html Preparation Code** The html preparation code includes a jQuery library (version 3.1.0) and an HTML element with the id "hi". The jQuery library is used to simulate the click event on the HTML element. **Test Cases** There are two test cases: ### 1. "JQuery" * **Benchmark Definition**: "$(\"#hi\").click()" * **Purpose**: This benchmark definition uses the jQuery library to select the HTML element with the id "hi" and then simulate a click event on it. * **Pros**: + Simulates a real-world scenario where a click event is triggered on an HTML element. + Uses a popular and widely-used JavaScript library (jQuery). * **Cons**: + Requires jQuery to be included in the test environment, which may add overhead. + May not be suitable for testing cases that require more control over the DOM. ### 2. "Raw" * **Benchmark Definition**: `document.getElementById(\"hi\").click()` * **Purpose**: This benchmark definition uses native JavaScript (without any library) to select the HTML element with the id "hi" and then simulate a click event on it. * **Pros**: + Does not require including any additional libraries, which reduces overhead. + Provides more control over the DOM compared to using a library like jQuery. * **Cons**: + May not accurately represent real-world scenarios where libraries are used. + Requires manual knowledge of how to access and manipulate HTML elements. **Library: jQuery** The jQuery library is a popular JavaScript library that provides an easy-to-use API for working with HTML documents. In this test case, it is used to select the HTML element with the id "hi" and then simulate a click event on it. The version of jQuery used in this benchmark (3.1.0) is likely included from a CDN. **Special JS Feature/ Syntax** There is no specific JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this test case that requires special attention. However, it's worth noting that the use of "$" notation to select an HTML element indicates that the test assumes jQuery is available and has been loaded. **Other Alternatives** If you were to recreate this benchmark without MeasureThat.net, here are some alternatives: * Using a similar library like Lodash or Moment.js instead of jQuery. * Implementing the click event simulation manually using native JavaScript (as in the "Raw" test case). * Adding additional overhead by including other libraries or scripts. Keep in mind that these alternatives would require modifications to the benchmark definition and preparation code.
Related benchmarks:
js vs jquery v3.1.1
TestClick
jQuery Selectors
jQuery dom
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?