Benchmark: Cash VS Umbrella VS jquery VS vanilla selectors

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.5.1/jquery.min.js"><script>
<script>jQuery.noConflict();</script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/cash/8.1.0/cash.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/umbrella/3.2.3/umbrella.min.js"></script>
<div id="foo">Hello World</div>

Tests:

Vanilla getById
var text = document.getElementById("foo");
Vanilla QuerySelectorAll
var text = document.querySelectorAll("#foo");
cash ById
var text = $("#foo");
umbrella ById
var text = u("#foo");
jquery ById
var text = jQuery("#foo");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Vanilla getById
Vanilla QuerySelectorAll
cash ById
umbrella ById
jquery ById

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:132.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/132.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 132 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

cash ById

8.3M/s

jquery ById

8.1M/s

Vanilla getById

7.5M/s

Vanilla QuerySelectorAll

1.6M/s

umbrella ById

667K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ cash ById	8,333,200 Ops/sec
jquery ById	8,146,709 Ops/sec
Vanilla getById	7,467,436 Ops/sec
Vanilla QuerySelectorAll	1,601,558 Ops/sec
umbrella ById	667,228 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros/cons, library usage, special JS features, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test case "Cash VS Umbrella VS jquery VS vanilla selectors" is designed to compare the performance of four JavaScript selector libraries:

1. Vanilla (native JavaScript)
2. Cash
3. Umbrella
4. jQuery

Each library has a different approach to selecting elements in an HTML document.

**Options Compared**

Here's a brief overview of each option:

1. **Vanilla**: Uses native JavaScript methods, such as `document.getElementById()` and `document.querySelector()`, to select elements.
2. **Cash**: A lightweight selector library that provides a simplified API for selecting elements. It uses a similar syntax to jQuery but with fewer dependencies.
3. **Umbrella**: Another lightweight selector library that aims to be more efficient than Cash while maintaining a similar API.
4. **jQuery**: A popular JavaScript library that provides a wide range of DOM manipulation and selection methods, including `$('#foo')`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Vanilla**:
	* Pros: Native performance, minimal dependencies.
	* Cons: Less efficient than other libraries, less convenient syntax.
2. **Cash**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, easy to use, fast execution.
	* Cons: Limited feature set compared to jQuery and Umbrella.
3. **Umbrella**:
	* Pros: Fast execution, similar API to Cash, good balance between performance and convenience.
	* Cons: Smaller community and fewer resources available compared to Cash.
4. **jQuery**:
	* Pros: Comprehensive feature set, widely adopted, and well-maintained.
	* Cons: Larger bundle size, more dependencies, can be slower than native JavaScript.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark includes jQuery, Cash, Umbrella, and Vanilla as separate libraries, each with its own script tags in the HTML preparation code. This allows for a fair comparison of their performance.

**Special JS Features**

None are mentioned in this specific benchmark, but it's worth noting that other tests may include features like:

* Async execution
* Web Workers
* ES6+ syntax
* Browser-specific features (e.g., `requestAnimationFrame()`)

**Other Considerations**

When interpreting the results, consider the following:

* **Execution count**: The number of executions per second is a key metric in this benchmark.
* **Browser and device platform**: The results may vary across different browsers and devices due to factors like rendering engines, JavaScript engines, and hardware capabilities.
* **HTML structure**: The presence of elements with similar IDs or classes can affect the performance of each library.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative selector libraries, consider:

1. **Sizzle**: Another lightweight selector library that aims to be faster than jQuery.
2. **Sequan**: A newer selector library that provides a more efficient and convenient API.
3. **Query**: A minimalistic selector library with a focus on simplicity and performance.

Keep in mind that the choice of selector library depends on your specific use case, project requirements, and personal preferences.

Cash VS Umbrella VS jquery VS vanilla selectors (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Vanilla getById vs Vanilla QuerySelectorAll vs cash ById vs umbrella ById vs jquery ById`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Vanilla getById

Vanilla QuerySelectorAll

cash ById

umbrella ById

jquery ById

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Cash VS Umbrella VS jquery VS vanilla selectors (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Vanilla getById vs Vanilla QuerySelectorAll vs cash ById vs umbrella ById vs jquery ById

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Vanilla getById

Vanilla QuerySelectorAll

cash ById

umbrella ById

jquery ById

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Vanilla getById vs Vanilla QuerySelectorAll vs cash ById vs umbrella ById vs jquery ById`