Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
JQUERY VS VANILLA v-na3
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
JQ vs Vanilla vs Vanilla No Map
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.6.1.min.js" integrity="sha256-o88AwQnZB+VDvE9tvIXrMQaPlFFSUTR+nldQm1LuPXQ=" crossorigin="anonymous"></script> <div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <div></div>
Tests:
JQ
$("div").each(function(i){ $(this).text("a"); });
Vanilla
[...document.querySelectorAll("div")].map(e=>{ e.innerText = "a"; });
Vanilla No Map
let divs = document.querySelectorAll("div"); for(let i=0;i<divs.length;i++){ divs[i].innerText = "a"; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
JQ
Vanilla
Vanilla No Map
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):
I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark. **Overview** This benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using jQuery (a popular JavaScript library) and using vanilla JavaScript (the standard JavaScript syntax). The test cases are designed to execute a simple loop that sets the text content of multiple HTML elements to "a". **Options Compared** There are three options being compared: 1. **JQuery**: Uses jQuery's `.each()` method to iterate over the elements, which is more concise and often preferred for its ease of use. 2. **Vanilla No Map**: Uses a traditional `for` loop with indexing (`i`) to iterate over the elements. 3. **Vanilla With Map**: Uses the `Array.prototype.map()` method, similar to jQuery's `.each()`, but applies it directly to an array of elements. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons for each approach: * **JQuery**: + Pros: Concise code, easy to read and maintain. + Cons: Adds an extra library dependency, which may not be desirable in all cases. Can also lead to slower performance due to the additional overhead of jQuery. * **Vanilla No Map**: + Pros: Fast execution, as it avoids the overhead of creating a new array or using a loop. + Cons: More verbose code, can be less readable and maintainable for complex iterations. * **Vanilla With Map**: + Pros: Similar performance to Vanilla No Map, but with slightly more concise code. + Cons: Creates an additional array, which may not be desirable in all cases. **Library and Syntax Considerations** The test case uses jQuery's `.each()` method. In this context, it's likely that the library is included using a script tag (as shown in the HTML preparation code). The use of `.each()` suggests that the test author wants to evaluate the performance impact of using a specific library. There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. **Other Alternatives** Some other alternatives for iterating over elements could be: * **Using `for...of` loops**: A more modern and concise way to iterate over arrays and iterable objects. * **Using `Array.prototype.forEach()`**: Another alternative to `.each()` that is often used with jQuery, but can also be used standalone. In terms of non-JavaScript alternatives, the benchmark only focuses on JavaScript performance comparisons. However, if you're interested in exploring other optimization techniques or testing frameworks, there are many options available, such as: * **Benchmarking libraries**: e.g., Benchmark.js, JS-Bench * **Test-driven development (TDD) and behavior-driven development (BDD)** tools
Related benchmarks:
JQUERY VS VANILLA v-na0
JQUERY VS VANILLA v-na1
JQUERY VS VANILLA v-na2
JQUERY VS VANILLA v-na4
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?