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="cadre_slider_decoration" class="twentytwenty-container">
								<img src="https://www.w3schools.com/css/trolltunga.jpg" id="image_slider_decoration_before" class="image_slider_decoration twentytwenty-before" style="clip: rect(0px 225.5px 301px 0px);">
								<img src="https://www.w3schools.com/css/trolltunga.jpg" id="image_slider_decoration_after" class="image_slider_decoration twentytwenty-after">
							<div class="twentytwenty-overlay"><div class="twentytwenty-before-label"></div><div class="twentytwenty-after-label"></div></div><div class="twentytwenty-handle" style="left: 225.5px;"><span class="twentytwenty-left-arrow"></span><span class="twentytwenty-right-arrow"></span></div></div>

Tests:

jQuery
var sliderW; sliderW = $("#image_slider_decoration_after").prop('naturalWidth')
Vanilla JS
var sliderW; sliderW = document.getElementById("image_slider_decoration_after").naturalWidth;

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The test compares the speed of getting an element by its ID using two approaches:

1. **jQuery**: A JavaScript library that provides an easy way to select elements on a webpage.
2. **Vanilla JS**: The standard JavaScript syntax, without any additional libraries.

**Options compared**

In this case, we have two options being compared:

* jQuery's `$(selector)` method for selecting elements by ID
* Vanilla JS's `document.getElementById(selector)` method for selecting elements by ID

**Pros and cons of each approach**

* **jQuery**: Pros:
	+ Easier to read and write, especially for complex selections.
	+ Provides a lot of additional functionality out of the box (e.g., event handling, animation).
* Cons:
	+ Adds an extra library that needs to be included in the HTML file.
	+ Can be slower than Vanilla JS due to the overhead of the library.
* **Vanilla JS**: Pros:
	+ No extra library needed, making it faster and more lightweight.
	+ Native support for most modern browsers.
* Cons:
	+ Requires a deeper understanding of the DOM and JavaScript syntax.

**Library usage**

In this case, the jQuery library is used in the benchmarking test. The `$(selector)` method is used to select the element by ID (`#image_slider_decoration_after`). This suggests that the test is designed to demonstrate the performance difference between using a library like jQuery and native JavaScript syntax.

**Special JS features or syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, Promises, or WebAssembly. It's focused on comparing the speed of two basic approaches to selecting elements by ID.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to test other approaches to selecting elements by ID, some alternative methods include:

* Using `document.querySelector(selector)` (a more modern and flexible selector API)
* Using a library like React or Angular, which provide their own selection APIs
* Using a virtual DOM library like React or Preact, which optimize the rendering of components.

Overall, this benchmark provides a simple and straightforward way to compare the performance of two approaches to selecting elements by ID in JavaScript.

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):