Benchmark: Real thugz - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<div class="container">
	<section class="section1">
		<div class="wrapperFake">
			<div class="adSlotContainer">
				<div class="slotFake">
						<iframe class="iframeFake"></iframe>
				</div>
			</div>    
		</div>
	</section>
	<section class="section2">
		<div class="wrapperFake">
			<div class="adSlotContainer">
				<div class="slotFake">
						<iframe class="iframeFake"></iframe>
				</div>
			</div>    
		</div>
	</section>
	<section class="section3">
		<div class="wrapperFake">
			<div class="adSlotContainer">
				<div class="slotFake">
						<iframe class="iframeFake"></iframe>
				</div>
			</div>    
		</div>
	</section>
	<section class="section4">
		<div class="wrapperFake">
			<div class="adSlotContainer">
				<div class="slotFake">
						<iframe class="iframeFake"></iframe>
				</div>
			</div>    
		</div>
	</section>
	<section class="section5">
		<div class="wrapperFake">
			<div class="adSlotContainer">
				<div class="slotFake">
						<iframe class="iframeFake"></iframe>
				</div>
			</div>    
		</div>
	</section>
	<section class="section6">
		<div class="wrapperFake">
			<div class="adSlotContainer">
				<div class="slotFake">
						<iframe class="iframeFake"></iframe>
				</div>
			</div>    
		</div>
	</section>
	<section class="section7">
		<div class="wrapperFake">
			<div class="adSlotContainer">
				<div class="slotFake">
						<iframe class="iframeFake"></iframe>
				</div>
			</div>    
		</div>
	</section>
	<section class="section8">
		<div class="wrapperFake">
			<div class="adSlotContainer">
				<div class="slotFake">
						<iframe class="iframeFake"></iframe>
				</div>
			</div>    
		</div>
	</section>
	<section class="section9">
		<div class="wrapperFake">
			<div class="adSlotContainer">
				<div class="slotFake">
						<iframe class="iframeFake"></iframe>
				</div>
			</div>    
		</div>
	</section>
	<section class="section10">
		<div class="wrapper" id="wrapper">
			<div class="adSlotContainer">
              <div class="addtionalDiv">
				<div id="slot">
						<iframe id="iframe"></iframe>
				</div>
              </div>
			</div>    
		</div>
	</section>
</div>

Tests:

ID
let el1 = document.getElementById('iframe'); let el2 = document.getElementById('wrapper');
Closest
let el1 = document.getElementById('iframe'); let el2 = el1.closest('.wrapper');
ParentNode
let el1 = document.getElementById('iframe'); let el2 = el1.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ID
Closest
ParentNode

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.

I'll explain what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

The benchmark is testing three different ways to retrieve an `iframe` element from the DOM:

1. **ID**: This option tests using the `document.getElementById()` method, which returns the first element with the specified ID. In this case, it should return the `iframe` element.
2. **Closest**: This option tests using the `el.closest()` method, which returns the closest ancestor element of the specified element that matches the given selector or class name. In this case, it should return the `.wrapper` element.
3. **ParentNode**: This option tests using the `el.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode` chain, which navigates up the DOM tree from the current element to the root element and then back down to the parent elements, effectively returning the same result as using `closest()`.

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of these three approaches in different scenarios. The results are likely being compared across multiple browsers, devices, and operating systems.

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

* **ID**: This method is simple and fast, but it may not be efficient if there are many elements with the same ID on the page.
	+ Pros: Fast, easy to implement
	+ Cons: May not work well with multiple elements having the same ID, can lead to performance issues if not optimized correctly
* **Closest**: This method is more flexible and can handle cases where there are multiple elements with a specific class name or selector. However, it may be slower than `ID` in some cases.
	+ Pros: More versatile, handles edge cases well
	+ Cons: May be slower than `ID`, requires additional DOM traversal
* **ParentNode**: This method is the most efficient but also the most complex to implement, as it involves multiple levels of navigation up the DOM tree. It may not work as expected if there are many nested elements.
	+ Pros: Fastest, most efficient
	+ Cons: Complex to implement, may not work well with deep DOM structures

In terms of performance, the results suggest that:

* **ParentNode** is the fastest method, executing around 699378 iterations per second.
* **Closest** is slightly slower than `ID`, executing around 881184 iterations per second.
* **ID** is the slowest method, executing around 1091707 iterations per second.

Keep in mind that these results are specific to this benchmark and may not generalize to all use cases. The actual performance difference between these methods will depend on the specific requirements of your application.

Related benchmarks:

Real thugz (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: ID vs Closest vs ParentNode

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ID

Closest

ParentNode

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):