Benchmark: jQuery dom - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/jquery@3.6.1/dist/jquery.min.js" integrity="sha256-o88AwQnZB+VDvE9tvIXrMQaPlFFSUTR+nldQm1LuPXQ=" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
<main>
    <button id="order">Click me</button>
</main>

Tests:

jQuery
$('#order').text();
native
document.getElementById('order').textContent

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
native

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'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its various components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares the performance of two approaches: using jQuery (a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation) and using native DOM methods. The benchmark is designed to measure the execution time of these two approaches on a simple HTML page with a button element.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **jQuery**: This option uses the jQuery library to select and manipulate the `#order` button element. Specifically, it calls the `text()` method on the selected element.
2. **Native**: This option uses native DOM methods to select and manipulate the `#order` button element. It uses the `document.getElementById()` method to get a reference to the element and then accesses its `textContent` property.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **jQuery**:
	+ Pros: jQuery is a widely used library that provides a simple and convenient way to manipulate the DOM. It also includes many other useful methods for working with HTML documents.
	+ Cons: jQuery introduces an extra dependency, which can slow down page load times. Additionally, its use of `$` as a prefix for functions and variables can lead to naming conflicts in some cases.
* **Native**:
	+ Pros: Native DOM methods are generally faster and more efficient than using a library like jQuery. They also don't introduce any additional dependencies or potential naming conflicts.
	+ Cons: Native DOM methods require a better understanding of the underlying HTML document structure, which can be a barrier for some developers.

**Library**

The `jQuery` library is a popular JavaScript library that provides a simple and convenient way to manipulate the DOM. It was created by John Resig in 2006 and is widely used on the web today. jQuery includes many other useful methods for working with HTML documents, such as selecting elements, manipulating attributes, and handling events.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the provided benchmark test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may have different performance characteristics when using certain JavaScript features, such as async/await or promise chains.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to this benchmark, here are a few options:

* **Vanilla DOM**: You could compare the performance of native DOM methods with other vanilla JavaScript libraries, such as React or Angular.
* **Template Literals**: Some browsers have optimized template literals (e.g., `${variable}`) for better performance. You could add a test case to measure their execution time.
* **Other Libraries**: If you're interested in exploring other JavaScript libraries that provide DOM manipulation functionality, you could compare their performance with jQuery or native DOM methods.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require additional setup and configuration, as well as modifications to the benchmark code.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery dom (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs native

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

native

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):