Benchmark: nuTotalHeight() - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:



function nuTotalHeight(i){
	
	var h	= 0;

	if($('#' + i).length == 0){return 0;}

	h = h + parseInt($('#' + i).css('height'));
	h = h + parseInt($('#' + i).css('padding-top'));
	h = h + parseInt($('#' + i).css('padding-bottom'));
	h = h + parseInt($('#' + i).css('border-top-width'));
	h = h + parseInt($('#' + i).css('border-bottom-width'));
	h = h + parseInt($('#' + i).css('margin-top'));
	h = h + parseInt($('#' + i).css('margin-bottom'));

	return h;
	
}

function nuTotalHeight_New(i){
	
	var h	= 0;

	let obj = $('#' + i);
	if(obj.length == 0){return 0;}
	
	h = h + parseInt(obj.css('height'));
	h = h + parseInt(obj.css('padding-top'));
	h = h + parseInt(obj.css('padding-bottom'));
	h = h + parseInt(obj.css('border-top-width'));
	h = h + parseInt(obj.css('border-bottom-width'));
	h = h + parseInt(obj.css('margin-top'));
	h = h + parseInt(obj.css('margin-bottom'));

	return h;
	
}

Tests:

Code old
nuTotalHeight('new-benchmark-form');
Code new
nuTotalHeight_New('new-benchmark-form');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Code old
Code new

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided JSON.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is two functions: `nuTotalHeight(i)` and `nuTotalHeight_New(i)`. These functions appear to calculate the total height of an HTML element, taking into account its padding, border, margin, and other CSS properties. The main difference between the two functions is the way they retrieve the jQuery object (`$('#' + i)`). In the old version, it's using `let obj = $('#' + i);`, while in the new version, it's directly assigning the result to a variable (`obj = $('#' + i);`).

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing two versions of these functions:

1. **Code Old**: This uses the older approach with `let obj = $('#' + i);`.
2. **Code New**: This uses the newer approach with `obj = $('#' + i);`.

These two approaches differ in how they retrieve the jQuery object, which may have implications for performance.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Code Old (old approach)**:
	+ May be more efficient since it avoids unnecessary reassignments.
	+ Could potentially lead to slower performance due to the reassignment.
* **Code New (new approach)**:
	+ Is likely faster since it avoids the reassignment.
	+ May be slightly less efficient due to the reassignment.

In general, using `let obj = $('#' + i);` instead of `obj = $('#' + i);` is a good practice in JavaScript, as it avoids overwriting the value of the variable. However, in this specific case, the difference may be negligible unless you're dealing with very large datasets or performance-critical code.

**Library and Purpose**

The benchmark uses jQuery, a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. In this context, jQuery provides a convenient way to retrieve elements by their ID using `$('#' + i)`.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark. It's purely focused on comparing the performance of two different function implementations.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite these functions with a different approach, here are some alternatives:

1. **Use `document.getElementById(i)` instead**: This would avoid using jQuery altogether and rely solely on the native DOM API.
2. **Use `getComputedStyle`**: If you needed to access CSS properties like height, padding, etc., you could use the `getComputedStyle` method to retrieve the computed style of an element.

However, these alternatives might not be necessary unless you have specific requirements or constraints that make them desirable.

Related benchmarks:

nuTotalHeight() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Code old vs Code new

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Code old

Code new

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):