Benchmark: JQuery Speed Test

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.4.4/jquery.min.js">
<script>
  var $jq1124 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.4/jquery.min.js">
</script>
<script>
  var $jq224 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq331 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div>
  <ul id="menu">
    <li class="menu-item">1</li>
    <li class="menu-item">2</li>
    <li class="menu-item">3</li>
    <li class="menu-item">4</li>  
  </ul>
</div>

Script Preparation code:

function tests($) {
    $(".menu-item").eq(2).closest("ul").css({
      "background-color": "red"
    }).parent().css({
      "border": "1px solid blue"
    }).end().end().remove();
}

Tests:

$jq1124
tests($jq1124);
$jq224
tests($jq224);
$jq331
tests($jq331);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
$jq1124
$jq224
$jq331

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 143 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
$jq1124	0.0 Ops/sec
$jq224	489100.2 Ops/sec
$jq331	349673.6 Ops/sec

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 provided benchmark is designed to measure the performance of jQuery, a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. The benchmark consists of three individual test cases: `tests($jq1124)`, `tests($jq224)`, and `tests($jq331)`. Each test case creates a specific HTML structure using jQuery and measures the execution time to perform certain operations on that structure.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The Benchmark Definition JSON contains information about the benchmark, including:

* `Name` and `Description`: Human-readable names and descriptions of the benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code`: A JavaScript function that prepares the environment for the benchmark. In this case, it initializes jQuery in different versions (1.4.4, 2.2.4, and 3.3.1) using the `$().noConflict(true)` method.
* `Html Preparation Code`: The HTML code used to create a test structure that is used by each test case.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each individual test case uses a different version of jQuery:

* `$jq1124` uses jQuery 1.4.4
* `$jq224` uses jQuery 2.2.4
* `$jq331` uses jQuery 3.3.1

The script preparation code includes the line `var $jqX = $.noConflict(true);`, where `X` is the version number of jQuery used in the test case (e.g., `$jq1124` corresponds to version 1.4.4). This line initializes a new global scope for the corresponding version of jQuery, effectively "conflicting" with other versions.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of different versions of jQuery:

* jQuery 1.4.4
* jQuery 2.2.4
* jQuery 3.3.1

**Pros and Cons**

* **Using multiple versions**: This approach allows for a more accurate comparison of performance between different versions of jQuery.
* **Avoiding version dependencies**: By using `$().noConflict(true)` to create isolated environments, the benchmark avoids potential version-dependent issues that might affect the results.

However, this approach also introduces some complexity and may require additional overhead due to the multiple global scopes created:

* **Increased memory usage**: The use of multiple global scopes can lead to increased memory usage, which may impact performance.
* **Potential for conflicts**: Although `$().noConflict(true)` is used to create isolated environments, there is still a small chance that conflicts might arise between versions.

**Other Considerations**

* **Browser and platform variations**: The benchmark results are specific to Chrome 111 on Windows Desktop. It's essential to consider other browsers, platforms, and devices when evaluating jQuery performance.
* **Optimization opportunities**: There may be opportunities to optimize the script preparation code or HTML structure to improve performance without affecting the benchmark.

**Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, consider:

* Using a different benchmarking framework or tool.
* Focusing on specific aspects of jQuery performance, such as DOM manipulation or event handling.
* Creating a more comprehensive benchmark that covers additional scenarios and edge cases.

Related benchmarks:

JQuery Speed Test (version: 0)

JQuery Speed Test

Comparing performance of: $jq1124 vs $jq224 vs $jq331

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

$jq1124

$jq224

$jq331

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):