Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
JQuery $(window) vs $window vs window.innerWidth
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
jQuery - without cache vs jQuery - with cache. vs Native js
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
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.
$window.width()
Native js
window.innerWidth
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
jQuery - without cache
jQuery - with cache.
Native js
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 131 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=571338" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
jQuery - without cache
370953.5 Ops/sec
jQuery - with cache.
986674.8 Ops/sec
Native js
2138190.8 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark. **Overview** The benchmark compares the performance of three approaches to access the `window` object and retrieve its width: 1. Using jQuery ($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.
Related benchmarks:
Document Width
Jquery Width vs Native
Vanilla JS VS JQuery DOM perfomance + getbyid(elId)
Vanilla js vs jquery: scrollY
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?