Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
getElementById vs querySelector (ver.2023.05)
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
getElementById vs querySelector
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<html> <body> <div id="test"></div> </body> </html>
Tests:
getElementById
document.getElementById("test");
querySelector
document.querySelector("#test");
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
getElementById
querySelector
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/121.0.0.0
Browser/OS:
Chrome 121 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=502741" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
getElementById
3.6M/s
querySelector
2.2M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
getElementById
3,555,434 Ops/sec
querySelector
2,160,138 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The test is comparing two ways to select an HTML element by its ID: `document.getElementById` (aliased as "getElementById") and `document.querySelector` (aliased as "querySelector"). The benchmark aims to determine which method is faster. **Options Compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **document.getElementById**: This function takes a string argument representing the ID of the element to be retrieved, and returns the corresponding HTML element. 2. **document.querySelector**: This function also takes a string argument representing the selector (in this case, an ID) of the element to be retrieved, but it uses CSS selectors to achieve the result. **Pros and Cons** * `document.getElementById`: + Pros: Simple, straightforward, and widely supported across browsers. + Cons: Can be slower for more complex queries or when used with less efficient algorithms (e.g., using querySelectorAll). * `document.querySelector`: + Pros: More flexible and powerful than `getElementById`, allowing for more complex selectors and better support for modern web development standards like CSS3. + Cons: May have performance overhead due to the complexity of its algorithm or the need to parse CSS selectors. **Library Usage** Neither `document.getElementById` nor `document.querySelector` relies on a specific library. These are native JavaScript functions built into the DOM API. **Special JS Features or Syntax** This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, Promise, or modern ES modules (ES6+). The code is straightforward and uses basic synchronous operations. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to test these methods under different scenarios: 1. **Dynamic element generation**: Test how `document.getElementById` and `querySelector` perform when dealing with dynamically generated elements. 2. **Nested selectors**: Test using more complex CSS selectors, like `querySelectorAll`, to see if the performance difference remains significant. 3. **Async/await usage**: Test how these methods perform when used within async/await statements or Promises. Keep in mind that benchmarking JavaScript performance can be complex and dependent on many factors, such as browser version, hardware, and environment.
Related benchmarks
querySelector vs getElementById
querySelector() vs getElementsByClassName()[0]
querySelector vs getElementById & getElementsByClassName
getElementById vs querySelector 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?