Benchmark: jQuery css styles set

HTML Preparation code:

<div class="container">
    <div class="item">Lorem</div>
    <div class="item">Ipsum</div>
    <div class="item">Dolor sit</div>
    <div class="item">Amet consectetur</div>
</div>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Tests:

Direct params
$('.item', {style: {width: 100, height: 100}});
CSS function
$('.item').css({width: 100, height: 100});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Direct params
CSS function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Direct params	1974603.8 Ops/sec
CSS function	53152.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of two approaches to set CSS styles on HTML elements using jQuery:

1. **Direct parameter passing**: This approach passes the style object as an argument to the `$.item` selector, like this: `$('.item', {style: {width: 100, height: 100}});`.
2. **CSS function call**: This approach uses the `.css()` method to set the CSS styles on the element, like this: `$('.item').css({width: 100, height: 100});`.

**Options comparison**

The two approaches have different pros and cons:

* **Direct parameter passing**:
	+ Pros: Can be more efficient since it avoids an extra function call.
	+ Cons: May require jQuery to create a style object internally, which could introduce overhead.
* **CSS function call**:
	+ Pros: Generally considered more readable and maintainable, as it separates the styling from the selection logic.
	+ Cons: May incur additional overhead due to the extra function call.

It's worth noting that modern JavaScript engines and browsers have optimized many of these functions, making the difference between these approaches relatively small. However, for extremely performance-critical code or in situations where every millisecond counts, choosing the right approach can make a significant difference.

**Library usage**

The benchmark uses jQuery, which is a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. In this case, jQuery's `.item` selector is used to target HTML elements with the class `item`, and the `.css()` method is used to set CSS styles on those elements.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly test any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may have specific optimizations or quirks when it comes to jQuery or other libraries, which could impact performance.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to set CSS styles on HTML elements in JavaScript, consider the following:

* Using the `style` attribute directly: `<div style="width: 100; height: 100">...</div>`. This approach avoids using jQuery or other libraries altogether.
* Using a CSS-in-JS library like styled-components or emothings. These libraries allow you to write CSS styles as JavaScript functions, which can be more efficient and flexible than traditional CSS files.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference. MeasureThat.net's benchmark provides a useful comparison between two common approaches, but it's always a good idea to experiment with different methods to find the best fit for your project.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery css styles set (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Direct params vs CSS function

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Direct params

CSS function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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