Benchmark: jquery vs vanilla query selector2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.0.min.js"></script>
<div id="testElement" class="test class list classes"><div class="tt"></div></div>

Tests:

jquery
var a = $('.classes').find('.tt');
vanilla
var a = document.querySelector('.classes'); a.querySelector('.tt');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jquery
vanilla

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark being tested is a simple comparison between using jQuery and vanilla JavaScript (with querySelector) to select elements in an HTML document.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **jQuery**: A popular JavaScript library that provides a convenient way to interact with the DOM.
2. **Vanilla QuerySelector**: Using the native `querySelector` method provided by modern browsers, which allows for efficient and flexible DOM selection.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **jQuery**:
	+ Pros: Easy to use, widely adopted, and provides a lot of functionality out of the box (e.g., event handling, animations).
	+ Cons: Adds overhead due to its library size, can be slower than native methods for simple DOM selection, and may not provide the most efficient way to interact with the DOM.
* **Vanilla QuerySelector**:
	+ Pros: Lightweight, fast, and provides a modern approach to DOM selection. It's also supported by most modern browsers.
	+ Cons: Can be more verbose and require more understanding of CSS selectors than jQuery.

**Library Used (jQuery)**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM interaction. In this benchmark, it's used to select elements using the `.classes` selector followed by `.find('.tt')`.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of two approaches.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to jQuery or vanilla QuerySelector, here are some options:

* For **jQuery-like functionality**: Libraries like React, Angular, or Vue.js provide similar patterns and ease of use.
* For **Vanilla DOM selection**: Other libraries like Sizzle (the engine behind jQuery) or libraries specifically designed for CSS selectors, like Selectrify.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided preparation code includes the following elements:

* A script tag referencing jQuery 3.1.0
* An HTML element (`<div id="testElement">`) with classes and a descendant element (`<div class="tt"></div>`) that will be used for selection

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case defines a simple benchmark using the `Benchmark Definition` syntax, which is executed in sequence:

1. **jQuery**: `var a = $('.classes').find('.tt');`
2. **Vanilla QuerySelector**: `var a = document.querySelector('.classes') a.querySelector('.tt');`

These test cases are designed to execute quickly and provide accurate results for the comparison between jQuery and vanilla QuerySelector.

**Latest Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark result shows that:

* Vanilla QuerySelector (with querySelector) outperformed jQuery in both executions per second (`3039457.25` vs `568381.5`) on a Chrome 105 browser running on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 device.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark being tested on MeasureThat.net!

Related benchmarks:

jquery vs vanilla query selector2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jquery vs vanilla

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jquery

vanilla

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):