Benchmark: matches vs. closest 2

HTML Preparation code:

<div class="foo"><div class="bar"></div></div>

Tests:

matches
var element = document.querySelector(".bar"); var i = 1000; while (i--) { element.matches(".foo .bar"); }
closest
var element = document.querySelector(".bar"); var i = 1000; while (i--) { element.closest(".foo"); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
matches
closest

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/142.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 142 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
matches	18368.4 Ops/sec
closest	15818.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two DOM selection methods: `matches` and `closest`. The test cases involve selecting an element with the class `.bar` within another element with the class `.foo`, using both `matches` and `closest`.

**Options compared:**

1. **`matches`**: This method checks if the selected element matches a given CSS selector, in this case, `.foo .bar`. It returns a boolean value indicating whether the element matches the selector.
2. **`closest`**: This method returns the closest ancestor element that matches a given CSS selector, in this case, `.foo`. It also returns a boolean value indicating whether an ancestor matching the selector was found.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* `matches`:
	+ Pros:
		- Simple and straightforward implementation.
		- Can be more efficient if the element is already in a state that matches the selector (e.g., it's already set to `.foo .bar`).
	+ Cons:
		- May perform additional unnecessary computations or DOM lookups, especially for elements without matching the initial selector.
		- May be slower than `closest` due to the additional checks.
* `closest`:
	+ Pros:
		- More efficient because it stops searching once an ancestor matching the selector is found, reducing unnecessary computations and DOM lookups.
		- Can provide a more direct result for elements with multiple ancestors that match the selector.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower than `matches` if no ancestor matches the selector.

**Library and purpose:**

In the provided benchmark code, there are two libraries being used:

1. **`document.querySelector()`**: This is a standard JavaScript method that selects an element based on a CSS selector. It returns the first matching element or `null` if no match is found.
2. **No explicit library usage for `matches` and `closest` methods**: These methods are built-in to modern browsers and are implemented in the DOM implementation, not as separate libraries.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

* None mentioned in this specific benchmark.

**Other alternatives:**

For testing similar benchmarks, you might consider:

1. **`querySelectorAll()`**: This method returns a NodeList of all elements that match the CSS selector.
2. **`getElementsByClassName()`**: This method returns an HTMLCollection of all elements with the specified class name.
3. **`getAttribute()`** and `setAttribute()`: These methods allow you to manipulate attributes on an element.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide the exact same performance characteristics as `matches` and `closest`, but can be used for similar benchmarks or tests depending on your specific requirements.

Related benchmarks:

matches vs. closest 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: matches vs closest

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

matches

closest

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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