Benchmark: JQuery $(window) vs $window vs window.innerWidth

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.0.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

$window = $(window)

Tests:

jQuery - without cache
$(window).width()
jQuery - with cache.
$window.width()
Native js
window.innerWidth

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery - without cache
jQuery - with cache.
Native js

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Native js

2.1M/s

jQuery - with cache.

987K/s

jQuery - without cache

371K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Native js	2,138,191 Ops/sec
jQuery - with cache.	986,675 Ops/sec
jQuery - without cache	370,953 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 explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of three approaches to access the `window` object and retrieve its width:

1. Using jQuery ($window)
2. Using jQuery with caching ($window.width())
3. Native JavaScript (window.innerWidth)

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation and event handling. In this benchmark, it's used to create a reference to the `window` object, which allows developers to access its properties.

The script preparation code `$window = $(window);` creates a new variable `$window` that refers to the jQuery-wrapped `window` object. This is done to avoid using the native `window` object in some browsers where it's not supported or has different behavior.

**Special JS feature: Caching**

In JavaScript, caching is a technique used to store frequently accessed values or computations in memory to improve performance. In this benchmark, jQuery uses caching to store the result of `$window.width()` in its internal cache. This means that if you call `$window.width()` multiple times, it will return the cached value instead of recalculating it.

**Native JavaScript**

The native `window` object is a built-in part of the JavaScript engine. In this benchmark, we use the `window.innerWidth` property to access the width of the window.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **jQuery ($window)**:
	+ Pros: Easy to use, reduces DOM manipulation complexity.
	+ Cons: Introduces additional overhead due to jQuery's caching mechanism.
* **jQuery with caching ($window.width())**:
	+ Pros: Reduces the number of DOM accesses, improves performance.
	+ Cons: Caching can lead to stale values if not properly managed.
* **Native JavaScript (window.innerWidth)**:
	+ Pros: Fastest and most lightweight approach.
	+ Cons: May require additional DOM manipulation or event handling.

**Other considerations**

The benchmark also includes a script preparation code that loads jQuery version 3.1.0, which is an older version of the library.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to accessing the `window` object include:

* Using other JavaScript libraries like VanillaJS or Lodash.
* Creating a custom wrapper function for the native `window` object.
* Using a different caching mechanism, such as memoization.

However, these alternatives are not tested in this specific benchmark.

JQuery $(window) vs $window vs window.innerWidth (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `jQuery - without cache vs jQuery - with cache. vs Native js`

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

jQuery - without cache

jQuery - with cache.

Native js

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

JQuery $(window) vs $window vs window.innerWidth (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: jQuery - without cache vs jQuery - with cache. vs Native js

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

jQuery - without cache

jQuery - with cache.

Native js

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `jQuery - without cache vs jQuery - with cache. vs Native js`