Benchmark: jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.2.1.min.js"></script>
<div class="test"></div>
<div class="test2"></div>

Tests:

jQuery 3.2.1 Slim
var el = $( document.getElementById(".test") ).jQueryCall();
Vanilla JS
var el = document.getElementsByClassName('test');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery 3.2.1 Slim
Vanilla JS

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares the speed of getting an element by its id using two approaches: jQuery (specifically, `jQuery 3.2.1 Slim`) and Vanilla JavaScript (`document.getElementById`).

**Options Compared**

* **jQuery**: The `jQuery 3.2.1 Slim` option uses a minimized version of jQuery to reduce its size while maintaining the core functionality.
* **Vanilla JavaScript**: The `document.getElementById` option uses native JavaScript functions provided by the browser.

**Pros and Cons**

* **jQuery**:
	+ Pros: jQuery provides a simple, intuitive way to select elements on the page. It's also widely used and well-maintained.
	+ Cons: Using jQuery adds extra overhead due to its library size and complexity. Additionally, it may not be necessary for small applications or those that don't require DOM manipulation.
* **Vanilla JavaScript**:
	+ Pros: Native JavaScript functions are typically faster and more efficient than using a library like jQuery. They also provide better control over the execution process.
	+ Cons: Using `document.getElementById` requires more code and manual handling of edge cases.

**Library Used (jQuery)**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation, event handling, and Ajax interactions. Its primary purpose is to provide a consistent and easy-to-use interface for working with the Document Object Model (DOM). In this benchmark, jQuery's `jQueryCall()` function is used to call a callback function on the element retrieved by its id.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The tests only focus on comparing the performance of two different approaches: using jQuery and using native JavaScript functions.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two options, consider the trade-offs between:

* Performance: Native JavaScript functions are typically faster than using a library like jQuery.
* Complexity: Using jQuery provides a more straightforward way to select elements, but adds extra overhead.
* Control: Vanilla JavaScript offers better control over the execution process.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for selecting elements on the page include:

* `querySelector()` and `querySelectorAll()`: These functions are part of the DOM API and provide a more flexible way to select elements using CSS selectors.
* `$` (Dollar sign): Some libraries, like Lodash or Underscore.js, offer an alternative to jQuery's `$` function.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as widely supported or well-maintained as jQuery.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById (version: 0)

Comparing speed of getting element by id with jQuery vs Vanilla JS

Comparing performance of: jQuery 3.2.1 Slim vs Vanilla JS

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery 3.2.1 Slim

Vanilla JS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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