Benchmark: offsetwidth-vs-outerwidth

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="imba" style="margin: 10px;"></div>
window.template = "<div style='width: 20px;'></div><div style='width: 20px;'></div><div style='width: 20px;'></div><div style='width: 20px;'></div><div style='width: 20px;'></div><div style='width: 20px;'></div><div style='width: 20px;'></div><div style='width: 20px;'></div><div style='width: 20px;'></div><div style='width: 20px;'></div><div style='width: 20px;'></div><div style='width: 20px;'></div><div style='width: 20px;'></div><div style='width: 20px;'></div><div style='width: 20px;'></div>";

Tests:

jquery
$('#imba').html(window.template).outerWidth(true);
native
var imba = document.getElementById('imba'); var m = document.createDocumentFragment(); m.innerHTML += window.template; imba.appendChild(m) imba.offsetWidth;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jquery
native

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; rv:129.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/129.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 129 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jquery	253735.0 Ops/sec
native	700076.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to measure the width of an HTML element: `offsetWidth` and `outerWidth`. The test is designed to simulate a scenario where the width of an element is being calculated, likely for layout or positioning purposes.

**Approaches Compared**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **jQuery Approach**: This approach uses jQuery's `outerWidth()` method to measure the width of the HTML element.
2. **Native Approach**: This approach measures the width of the HTML element using native JavaScript methods:
	* `document.getElementById('imba')` gets a reference to the element with ID `imba`.
	* `document.createDocumentFragment()` creates a new document fragment.
	* The fragment's `innerHTML` property is set to the template string, which is defined in the `Html Preparation Code`.
	* The fragment is then appended to the `imba` element.
	* Finally, the `offsetWidth` property of the `imba` element is accessed.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **jQuery Approach**:
	* Pros: Easy to use, well-established library with good performance.
	* Cons: Adds extra overhead due to jQuery's initialization and parsing of the template string.
2. **Native Approach**:
	* Pros: No additional dependencies or overhead.
	* Cons: Requires more manual effort and DOM manipulation.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark is running on a desktop platform with Firefox 129.
* The test cases are designed to measure the width of an element with a fixed template string, which may not reflect real-world usage scenarios where templates can vary in complexity.

**Library Used**

The jQuery library is used in the `jQuery Approach` test case. It provides a convenient way to manipulate and query DOM elements, but also adds some overhead due to its internal workings.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two approaches to measure an element's width.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to modify this benchmark to compare other approaches, you could consider:

* Using a different library, such as React or Angular.
* Implementing a custom width calculation function using native JavaScript methods.
* Adding additional complexity to the template string to simulate real-world scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

offsetwidth-vs-outerwidth (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jquery vs native

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jquery

native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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