Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
each (jQuery) vs for
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
each (jQuery) vs for
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.0/jquery.min.js"></script> <link rel="stylesheet" href="style.min.css" type="text/css"> <link rel="stylesheet" href="style.min.css" type="text/css"> <link rel="stylesheet" href="style.min.css" type="text/css"> <link rel="stylesheet" href="style.min.css" type="text/css"> <link rel="stylesheet" href="style.min.css" type="text/css">
Tests:
each (jQuery)
$('link[href*=".min.css"]').each(function(){});
for
let test = $('link[href*=".min.css"]'); for(var i = 0, j = test.length; i < j; i += 1){ }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
each (jQuery)
for
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is comparing two approaches to iterate over an array of links: 1. **`$.each()`**: This is a jQuery function that iterates over an array or collection of elements, performing a callback function for each element. 2. **`for` loop**: This is a traditional JavaScript loop that uses a variable `i` to iterate over the length of the test object (`test.length`). **Options being compared** The two options are: * `$.each()` (using jQuery) * `for` loop (traditional JavaScript) **Pros and Cons of each approach** 1. **`$.each()`**: * Pros: + Convenient and easy to use, especially for DOM manipulation. + Handles edge cases like empty collections or null values. * Cons: + Adds additional overhead due to the jQuery library. + May be slower than a traditional `for` loop for very large arrays. 2. **`for` loop**: * Pros: + Lightweight and fast, with minimal overhead. + Can be optimized for performance in certain scenarios (e.g., using `Array.prototype.forEach()`). * Cons: + Requires manual indexing and bounds checking, which can lead to errors. **Library: jQuery** In this benchmark, the library is jQuery, which provides a convenient wrapper around DOM manipulation. The use of `$` as a shortcut for the document object allows developers to perform common tasks like selecting elements or iterating over arrays with minimal code. **Special JS feature/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the `for` loop is using the more modern `Array.prototype.forEach()` method (not explicitly mentioned in the Benchmark Definition, but implied by the use of `test.length`) to iterate over the array. **Other alternatives** If you were to rewrite these benchmarks using other approaches, some options might include: * Using `forEach()` with an arrow function: `test.forEach(element => { /* code */ });` * Using a traditional `for` loop with manual indexing: `for (var i = 0; i < test.length; i++) { /* code */ }` * Using other iteration methods, such as `slice()` and `forEach()`: `test.slice(0, 10).forEach(element => { /* code */ });` Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics or trade-offs compared to the original benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
forEach vs jQuery each
forEach vs for vs Query each vs for of
forEach vs jQuery each vs for-of
each (jQuery 3.6.4) vs for
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?