Benchmark: jQuery hasClass vs jQuery is

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.2.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="el" class="test"></div>

Tests:

jQuery hasClass
$("#el").hasClass("test");
jQuery is
$("#el").is(".test");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery hasClass
jQuery is

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:122.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/122.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 122 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery hasClass	2816198.5 Ops/sec
jQuery is	2324135.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested in each test case.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two jQuery methods: `hasClass` and `is`. These methods are used to check if an element has a specific class or if it matches a certain selector, respectively.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **jQuery hasClass**: This method checks if an element has a specific class by using the `className` property of the DOM element.
2. **jQuery is**: This method checks if an element matches a certain selector by using the `matchesSelector()` function.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* `hasClass`: This approach is generally faster because it uses the optimized `className` property access, which is often cached in JavaScript engines. However, it may not be as accurate for cases where the class name has leading or trailing whitespace.
* `is`: This approach uses the `matchesSelector()` function, which can be slower than accessing the `className` property directly. However, it provides more flexibility and accuracy, especially when dealing with complex selectors.

**Additional Considerations**

Both methods have additional overhead due to the following:

* jQuery's DOM manipulation and event handling
* The JavaScript engine's execution of the method calls
* Any potential caching or optimization in the browser

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses jQuery library version 3.2.1, which is an older version but still widely supported.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these test cases.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to measure the performance of other jQuery methods, such as `toggleClass()` or `contents()`, you could add additional benchmarking scripts with their respective code and HTML preparation. For non-JQuery approaches, you could use native JavaScript methods like `Element.classList.contains()` or `Element.matches()`, depending on your specific requirements.

Keep in mind that measuring performance differences between small snippets of code is usually not representative of real-world usage scenarios. However, this benchmark can provide valuable insights into the performance characteristics of these specific jQuery methods in different browsers and execution environments.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery hasClass vs jQuery is (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jQuery hasClass vs jQuery is

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery hasClass

jQuery is

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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