Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
contains vs closest fork
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
contains vs closest
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<div id='div1'> <div id='div2'> <div id='div3'> </div> </div> </div>
Tests:
contains
const box = document.getElementById('div1') const clicked = document.getElementById('div3') const isClickInside = box.contains(clicked); return isClickInside
closest
const box = document.getElementById('div1') const clicked = document.getElementById('div3') const isClickInside = clicked.closest('#div1'); return isClickInside
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
contains
closest
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: `contains` and `closest`. Both methods are used to determine whether an element (`clicked`) is contained within another element (`box`), which is a child of the DOM node with ID "div1". **Options Compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **`contains()`**: This method returns `true` if the specified element is contained in the given container, and `false` otherwise. 2. **`closest()`**: This method returns the closest ancestor of the specified element that matches the given selector. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** * **`contains()`**: * Pros: * More straightforward and easier to understand. * Typically faster, as it only needs to traverse up the DOM tree until it finds the container. * Cons: * Can be slower if the `box` element is very deep in the DOM tree (i.e., many ancestor elements), since the method has to traverse all those ancestors. * **`closest()`**: * Pros: * Can be faster when dealing with large, nested DOM structures, as it returns as soon as it finds the first matching ancestor. * More flexible and powerful, as it can handle more complex scenarios (e.g., handling multiple possible closest matches). * Cons: * More complex and less intuitive than `contains()`. * May have additional overhead due to its more involved algorithm. **Library Used** The benchmark uses the DOM API, specifically the `document.getElementById()` method to retrieve elements by their IDs. The `closest()` method is also part of this API. **Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax** There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark beyond standard DOM manipulation and access methods (e.g., `document.getElementById()`, `.contains()`). **Other Considerations** When running benchmarks like this, you might want to consider factors such as: * Cache effects: How do different caching strategies impact the results? * Hardware-specific optimizations: Are there any hardware-related differences that would affect performance? * Additional dependencies or libraries: How do additional dependencies (e.g., polyfills) influence benchmark results? **Alternatives** If you were to write a similar benchmark, you might consider testing other approaches: * **Using query selectors**: Instead of `contains()` and `closest()`, use query selectors like `box.contains(clicked)` and `clicked.closest('#div1')`. * **Implementing custom traversal algorithms**: Develop your own traversal algorithms to traverse the DOM tree (e.g., using a recursive approach). Keep in mind that different benchmarks will have different characteristics, so consider what makes sense for your specific use case.
Related benchmarks:
Jquery fastest selector
classList.contains() vs closest() performance
contains2 vs closest2
JQuery: find vs selector vs scoped selector - More Html
jr_test_contains_vs_closest
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?