Benchmark: jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById

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>

Tests:

jQuery
var el = $("#testElement"); el.addClass('test');
Vanilla JS
var el = document.getElementById('testElement'); el.classList.add('test');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
Vanilla JS

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 the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the speed of two different approaches to select an HTML element by its ID:

1. **jQuery**: The jQuery library provides a convenient way to manipulate the DOM using its proprietary syntax.
2. **Vanilla JS**: This approach uses the native JavaScript `document.getElementById()` method to retrieve an element.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches on different aspects, including:

* Execution speed ( measured in executions per second)
* Browser-specific optimizations

However, MeasureThat.net doesn't explicitly compare all possible scenarios. For example, it doesn't test other ways to select elements, such as using classes or attributes.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **jQuery**
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to read and write code due to its concise syntax.
		+ Provides a robust set of utility methods for DOM manipulation.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds extra overhead due to its proprietary syntax and implementation details.
		+ May not be compatible with all browsers or versions.
2. **Vanilla JS**
	* Pros:
		+ Lightweight and compatible with most browsers and versions.
		+ Uses native JavaScript methods, which are generally faster and more efficient.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be less readable and more verbose compared to jQuery's syntax.

**Library (jQuery)**

The `jQuery` library is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation and provides a robust set of utility methods. It was created by John Resig in 2006 and has since become one of the most widely used JavaScript libraries.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

This benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It only relies on standard JavaScript and jQuery-specific syntax for the test cases.

**Other alternatives**

If MeasureThat.net were to expand its comparison, other approaches to select an HTML element might include:

* Using classes or attributes (e.g., `document.querySelector()` with a class selector)
* Using query selectors with attribute filters
* Using library-specific implementations of `document.getElementById()` (e.g., React's `useRef` or Angular's `ViewChild`)
* Using modern JavaScript features like `IntersectionObserver` or `requestAnimationFrame`

Keep in mind that the benchmark's scope is focused on comparing jQuery and Vanilla JS, so these alternative approaches might not be covered in a more comprehensive test suite.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById (version: 0)

Comparing speed of getting element by id with jQuery vs Vanilla JS

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs Vanilla JS

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

Vanilla JS

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):