Benchmark: jQuery Selector v3

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.0/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="#test-root"><div class="test-child"></div></div>

Tests:

Inline Selector
jQuery('#test-root .test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');
Find
jQuery('#test-root').find('.test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');
Ignore root
jQuery('.test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');
Include types
jQuery('div#test-root div.test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');
include find type
jQuery('#test-root').find('div.test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Inline Selector
Find
Ignore root
Include types
include find type

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Find

1.6M/s

include find type

1.6M/s

Inline Selector

425K/s

Include types

413K/s

Ignore root

122K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Find	1,611,549 Ops/sec
include find type	1,606,244 Ops/sec
Inline Selector	425,456 Ops/sec
Include types	412,585 Ops/sec
Ignore root	122,358 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is focused on testing different approaches to selecting elements in jQuery, specifically when using the `.find()` method.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a `<div>` element with an ID of "test-root" and another `<div>` element inside it with a class of "test-child". This setup will be used as the target for the selection tests.

**Script Preparation Code**

There is no script preparation code provided, which means that jQuery will need to be loaded dynamically when the benchmark runs. The `Html Preparation Code` section includes a link to load jQuery version 3.1.0.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of five test cases:

1. **Inline Selector**: This test case uses an inline selector (`jQuery('#test-root .test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');`) to select the inner `<div>` element.
2. **Find**: This test case uses the `.find()` method (`jQuery('#test-root').find('.test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');`) to select the inner `<div>` element.
3. **Ignore root**: This test case uses an inline selector that ignores the outermost element's ID by using a descendant combinator (`jQuery('.test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');`).
4. **Include types**: This test case includes both the ID and class selectors in the inline selector (`jQuery('div#test-root div.test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');`).
5. **Include find type**: This test case uses the `.find()` method with a non-trivial selector that includes an element name (`jQuery('#test-root').find('div.test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');`).

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **Inline Selector**:
	+ Pros: Simple, straightforward way to select elements.
	+ Cons: Can be brittle if the selector changes or becomes invalid.
* **Find**:
	+ Pros: More flexible than inline selectors, can handle complex selectors.
	+ Cons: May have performance overhead due to the method's implementation.
* **Ignore root**:
	+ Pros: Avoids issues with IDs and classes that might not be unique.
	+ Cons: Can result in slower performance if the browser needs to traverse more elements.
* **Include types**:
	+ Pros: Can improve performance by reducing the number of elements searched.
	+ Cons: May lead to issues if the selector is ambiguous or becomes invalid.
* **Include find type**:
	+ Pros: Combines the benefits of inline selectors and `.find()` methods.
	+ Cons: Can introduce complexity and performance overhead.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation and event handling. In this benchmark, it's used to test different approaches to selecting elements in the document.

**Special JS feature/Syntax: None mentioned**

The benchmark does not utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard DOM manipulation methods provided by jQuery.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative libraries or approaches for DOM manipulation, some options include:

* **Vanilla JavaScript**: Using native JavaScript functions and methods to manipulate the DOM.
* **React**, **Angular**, or **Vue.js**: Using a framework's built-in DOM manipulation features to select elements.
* **CSS Selectors**: Using CSS selectors directly in your code to target specific elements.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, complexity, and compatibility.

jQuery Selector v3 (version: 0) Benchmark.js

testing .find vs inline selector

Comparing performance of: `Inline Selector vs Find vs Ignore root vs Include types vs include find type`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Inline Selector

Find

Ignore root

Include types

include find type

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

jQuery Selector v3 (version: 0) Benchmark.js

testing .find vs inline selector

Comparing performance of: Inline Selector vs Find vs Ignore root vs Include types vs include find type

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Inline Selector

Find

Ignore root

Include types

include find type

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Comparing performance of: `Inline Selector vs Find vs Ignore root vs Include types vs include find type`