Benchmark: Jquery vs contextual fragment 2

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

range = document.createRange();
window.range = range

Tests:

js
const documentFragment = window.range.createContextualFragment(` <div> <label class="clickAndCollect-label" id="click-and-collect"> <div class="clickAndCollect-input-container"> <input class="clickAndCollect-input" type="checkbox" value="click-and-collect"> <span class="clickAndCollect-label-text">Entregarme el pedido hasta mi vehiculo</span> </div> </label> </div> `); document.body.appendChild(documentFragment);
Jquery
const el = $(` <div> <label class="clickAndCollect-label" id="click-and-collect"> <div class="clickAndCollect-input-container"> <input class="clickAndCollect-input" type="checkbox" value="click-and-collect"> <span class="clickAndCollect-label-text">Entregarme el pedido hasta mi vehiculo</span> </div> </label> </div> `); $('body').append(el);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
js
Jquery

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 provided JSON data for the JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches:

1. **Contextual Fragment (JS)**: This approach creates a new `DocumentFragment` using the `createContextualFragment()` method, and appends it to the document body.
2. **jQuery**: This approach uses jQuery's `$()` function to create an HTML string and then appends it to the document body.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these two approaches on a specific test case, which involves creating and appending a complex HTML structure using both methods.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Contextual Fragment (JS)**:
	* Pros: This approach allows for fine-grained control over the DOM manipulation process, as it creates a new fragment that can be manipulated independently.
	* Cons: Creating a `DocumentFragment` object involves additional overhead, which may impact performance in certain scenarios.
2. **jQuery**:
	* Pros: jQuery provides an efficient way to create complex HTML structures and manipulate them using its powerful selectors and methods.
	* Cons: This approach relies on the jQuery library, which adds overhead due to the need to load and parse the library's code.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used as the library for the second test case. jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that provides a wide range of functions for manipulating HTML documents, creating dynamic content, and interacting with the DOM.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require special handling or consideration.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to creating complex HTML structures could include:

1. **DOM manipulation using native JavaScript methods**: Instead of using `DocumentFragment`, you could use native JavaScript methods like `createElement()` and `appendChild()` to create and manipulate DOM elements.
2. **Template engines**: You could use a template engine like Handlebars or Mustache to generate HTML templates, which can then be rendered using JavaScript.
3. **HTML builders**: Some libraries, like React or Angular, provide HTML builders that allow you to construct complex DOM structures programmatically.

However, these alternatives may not offer the same level of control and flexibility as the Contextual Fragment approach in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Jquery vs contextual fragment 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: js vs Jquery

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

js

Jquery

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):