Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
offsetwidth-vs-outerwidth
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
jquery vs native
Created:
8 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1/jquery.min.js"></script> <div class="mp-charting-hoverable"><div class="mp_charting_order_dash mp-charting-hoverable" style="left: 36.6513px;"><span class="mp-charting-order-active-indicator-image mp-charting-order-active-stop-indicator mp_charting_meds_icon_leg_stop mp-charting-order-icon-hover" priority="STOP" seriesid="0"></span></div><div class="mp-charting-cell-shading-text mp-charting-hoverable mp_charting_meds_inactive_hash mp-charting-order-tick-hover" priority="STOP_BAR" seriesid="0" style="left: 36.6513px; width: 859.349px;"></div></div>
Script Preparation code:
var ele = $('.mp-charting-order-active-indicator-image');
Tests:
jquery
ele.innerWidth();
native
ele[0].offsetWidth;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
jquery
native
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 definition and test cases to understand what is being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark defines two tests: 1. `offsetwidth-vs-outerwidth`: This test compares the performance of using `innerWidth()` vs `offsetWidth()` on an HTML element. 2. The script preparation code includes a jQuery library, which will be used in one of the test cases. **Options Compared** Two options are being compared: A) Using `innerWidth()`, which returns the width of the inner content of an element, without considering any padding or border. B) Using `offsetWidth`, which returns the total width of an element including its padding and border. **Pros and Cons** * **`innerWidth()`**: + Pros: Generally faster and more lightweight since it doesn't include padding or border calculations. + Cons: May not accurately represent the actual visible width of an element, especially if there are margins or borders involved. * **`offsetWidth`**: + Pros: Accurately represents the total width of an element including its padding and border. Can be useful in certain layouts where accuracy is crucial. + Cons: May be slower and heavier since it requires calculating additional values. **Library and Its Purpose** The library used in this benchmark is jQuery, a popular JavaScript library for simplifying HTML interactions. In this case, the library is used to select an HTML element using its class (`ele = $('.mp-charting-order-active-indicator-image')`) and then access its width using `innerWidth()` or `offsetWidth`. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The tests only involve basic DOM interactions. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to run a similar benchmark, here are some alternatives: * Use different libraries like VanillaJS (no library) or a custom implementation. * Compare the performance of `offsetWidth` and `getComputedStyle().width`. * Introduce additional factors such as element styles or CSS animations to test their impact on performance. Keep in mind that the specific requirements and scope of your benchmark might vary, so it's essential to adapt these alternatives according to your needs.
Related benchmarks:
offsetwidth-vs-outerwidth
max vs arrat
charting library candidate 1
Highchart - should render chart3
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?