Benchmark: jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.2.1/jquery.slim.min.js"></script>
<div class="test"></div>
<div class="test2"></div>

Script Preparation code:

function Selector_Cache() {
    var collection = {};

    function get_from_cache( selector ) {
        if ( undefined === collection[ selector ] ) {
            collection[ selector ] = $( selector );
        }
        return collection[ selector ];
    }
    return { get: get_from_cache };
}

var selectors = new Selector_Cache();

Tests:

jQuery 3.2.1 Slim
var el = selectors.get('#test');
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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the speed of two approaches to retrieve an element by its ID:

1. **jQuery**: Using jQuery's `#` selector to select an element by its ID.
2. **Vanilla JS**: Using the native `document.getElementById()` method to select an element by its ID.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

* jQuery with version 3.2.1 Slim
* Vanilla JavaScript (without any libraries)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**jQuery:**

Pros:

* Easier to write and more concise code
* Often used in web development due to its popularity and extensive library functions
* Can be useful for complex DOM manipulations

Cons:

* Adds an extra HTTP request for the jQuery library
* May introduce additional overhead due to the need to parse the HTML and manage the DOM
* Less control over the underlying JavaScript engine's optimizations

**Vanilla JS:**

Pros:

* No additional libraries or HTTP requests are required
* Direct access to the native `document.getElementById()` method, which can be optimized by the browser
* More control over the underlying JavaScript engine's optimizations

Cons:

* Requires more verbose code for simple tasks like element retrieval
* May lead to slower performance if not optimized correctly

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation and provides an easy-to-use API for working with HTML documents. In this benchmark, jQuery is used to provide a convenient way to select elements by their ID.

The `Selector_Cache` function in the script preparation code is used to cache the results of previously executed selectors, which can improve performance by reducing the number of times the selector needs to be looked up in the DOM. This caching mechanism is a common pattern in jQuery's implementation.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives for retrieving an element by its ID include:

* `document.querySelector()` (introduced in ECMAScript 2015)
* Using CSS selectors with the `querySelector` method
* Using a library like React or Angular, which provide their own DOM management and selection mechanisms

Note that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics compared to jQuery or Vanilla JS.

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):