Benchmark: jQuery parent() vs closest() speed performance comparison

HTML Preparation code:

<ul>
	<li class="current">1</li>
	<li>2</li>
	<li>3</li>	   
</ul>

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1/jquery.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

item = $('.current');

Tests:

Parent
console.log(item.parent());
Closest
console.log(item.closest('ul'));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Parent
Closest

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:139.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/139.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 139 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Parent	236783.2 Ops/sec
Closest	231246.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that compares the performance of two jQuery functions: `parent()` and `closest()`. The benchmark is designed to test the speed performance of these two functions when used with the `.current` class selector.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the execution time of the following two options:

1. **`console.log(item.parent());`**: This option uses the `parent()` function to traverse the DOM tree and find the parent element of an HTML list item (`<li>`) with the class `current`.
2. **`console.log(item.closest('ul'));`**: This option uses the `closest()` function to find the closest ancestor element that matches a CSS selector (`'ul'` in this case).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`parent()`**:
	* Pros: Simple and lightweight, as it only requires traversing up the DOM tree by one level.
	* Cons: May not be efficient when dealing with deeply nested HTML structures or complex DOM trees.
2. **`closest()`**:
	* Pros: More flexible and efficient than `parent()`, as it can traverse down the DOM tree as well as up, allowing for more precise matching of ancestor elements.
	* Cons: Requires jQuery to parse the CSS selector, which may add overhead.

**Library and Its Purpose**

The benchmark uses jQuery, a popular JavaScript library that provides a set of functions and methods for manipulating the DOM. In this case, `closest()` is used as part of the jQuery library's feature set.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When running benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* The complexity of the HTML structure being tested.
* The version of jQuery and JavaScript being used.
* Any caching or memoization mechanisms that may be enabled.
* The presence of other scripts or resources that might interfere with benchmark results.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in running similar benchmarks, here are some alternatives:

1. **V8 Benchmark**: A set of benchmarking tests for the V8 JavaScript engine used by Google Chrome and Node.js.
2. **BenchPress**: A simple benchmarking framework for JavaScript that allows you to compare the performance of different functions or libraries.
3. **BenchmarkJS**: A comprehensive benchmarking tool for JavaScript that supports a wide range of benchmarks and test cases.

These alternatives can help you create your own microbenchmarks or run existing ones, allowing you to compare the performance of different JavaScript features and libraries in a controlled environment.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery parent() vs closest() speed performance comparison (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Parent vs Closest

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Parent

Closest

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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