Benchmark: Jquery Vs VanillaJS

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.6.0.min.js'></script>

<div id='test' data-count="0"></div>

Tests:

Jquery
for(let i = 0; i < 10; i++) { $('#test').text("actual count value is : "+$('#test').data('count')); $('#test').data('count', +$('#test').data('count')+1); }
Vanilla JS
for(let i = 0; i < 10; i++) { document.querySelector('#test').innerText = "actual count value is : "+document.querySelector('#test').dataset.count; document.querySelector('#test').dataset.count = +document.querySelector('#test').dataset.count+1; }

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:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/144.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 144 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Jquery	3641.7 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS	4429.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test comparing the performance of jQuery and VanillaJS (JavaScript's built-in functionality) in incrementing a counter value 10 times.

**What is being tested?**

In both test cases, the code increments a counter stored in an HTML element with the id "test" using either jQuery or VanillaJS. The benchmark measures how many executions per second each approach can perform.

**Options compared:**

1. **jQuery**: Uses jQuery's `$('#test').text()` and `$('#test').data('count')` methods to manipulate the counter value.
2. **VanillaJS**: Uses HTML element properties like `innerText` and `dataset` to achieve similar functionality without any external libraries.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **jQuery**:
	+ Pros:
		- Faster lookup and manipulation of elements using jQuery's DOM manipulation API.
		- More convenient syntax for accessing and modifying the counter value.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an additional HTTP request to load the jQuery library, which may introduce overhead.
		- May have a larger footprint due to the added library size.
* **VanillaJS**:
	+ Pros:
		- No additional HTTP requests or library dependencies.
		- Smaller footprint and potentially better performance since it doesn't rely on an external library.
	+ Cons:
		- More verbose syntax for accessing and modifying the counter value.
		- Requires manual DOM manipulation, which can be error-prone.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used to access and manipulate HTML elements. Specifically, it uses `$('#test').text()` and `$('#test').data('count')` methods to get and set the counter value. The `dataset` property in VanillaJS achieves similar functionality without relying on an external library.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, note that VanillaJS relies on the `dataset` property, which is a part of HTML5 specifications but not supported by all browsers.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative libraries or approaches to incrementing counters:

* **React Hooks**: Instead of using jQuery or VanillaJS directly, you could use React Hooks (e.g., `useState`) to manage state changes.
* **Redux**: For larger applications, Redux or another state management library might be used instead of direct manipulation of DOM elements.
* **Alternative libraries**: Libraries like Lodash or Ramda provide higher-order functions for manipulating data and may offer performance benefits in certain scenarios.

Keep in mind that these alternatives are not directly comparable to the jQuery/VanillaJS trade-off in this specific benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Jquery Vs VanillaJS (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Jquery vs Vanilla JS

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Jquery

Vanilla JS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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