Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
2x getById vs getById + closes
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
2x getById vs getById + closest
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<div class="wrapper" id="wrapper"> <div id="slot"></div> </div>
Tests:
2x getById
let el1 = document.getElementById('slot'); let el2 = document.getElementById('wrapper');
getById + closest
let el1 = document.getElementById('slot'); let el2 = el1.closest('.wrapper');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
2x getById
getById + closest
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases. **Benchmark Overview** MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The benchmark in question tests two approaches for retrieving an element by its ID: using `document.getElementById()` directly, and using `closest()` with the desired class (in this case, `.wrapper`). **Options Compared** The two options compared are: 1. **2x getById**: This approach involves calling `document.getElementById()` twice to retrieve the element. Once for the inner element (`el1 = document.getElementById('slot')`) and once for its parent container (`el2 = document.getElementById('wrapper')`). 2. **getById + closest**: This approach involves using `closest()` with the desired class (`.wrapper`) to retrieve the element, rather than calling `document.getElementById()` directly. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** * **2x getById**: + Pros: Directly retrieves the inner element, which may be sufficient for simple cases. + Cons: Repeatedly searches the DOM twice, leading to unnecessary iterations. * **getById + closest**: + Pros: Retrieves the parent container in a single operation, reducing DOM searches. + Cons: May not work as expected if the desired class is not present or not unique. **Library and Purpose** The `closest()` method is a part of the ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) standard. It's used to find the closest element that matches a given selector within the DOM tree. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The tests only use vanilla JavaScript and DOM methods. **Other Alternatives** If you were to rewrite these benchmarks using alternative approaches, here are some options: * Use `document.querySelector()` with a CSS selector instead of `closest()`. * Implement a custom implementation for retrieving the parent element. * Use a library like jQuery or a DOM manipulation framework like React or Angular. * Test other approaches, such as using a virtual DOM or a different data structure to store elements. Keep in mind that these alternatives may not necessarily provide better performance or results and might even introduce additional complexity. In this specific benchmark, the `getById + closest` approach outperforms `2x getById`, indicating that retrieving the parent container in a single operation can lead to significant performance gains.
Related benchmarks:
GetElementByClassName vs GetElementById
contains2 vs closest2
contains2 vs closest
getElementById vs id vs wrapper toggling class
jQuery width vs computed style
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?