Benchmark: contains vs closest 2

HTML Preparation code:

<div id='div1'>
  <div id='div2'>
    <div id='div3'>
    </div>
  </div>
</div>

Script Preparation code:

box = document.getElementById('div1')
clicked = document.getElementById('div3')

Tests:

contains
const isClickInside = box.contains(clicked); return isClickInside
closest
const isClickInside = clicked.closest('#div1'); return isClickInside

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
contains
closest

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; rv:127.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/127.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 127 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

contains

48.2M/s

closest

9.5M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ contains	48,214,284 Ops/sec
closest	9,495,303 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 defines two test cases: `contains` and `closest`. Both tests aim to measure the performance of JavaScript code that checks if an element is inside another element.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code sets up two variables:

* `box`: selects an HTML element with the id "div1" using `document.getElementById`.
* `clicked`: selects an HTML element with the id "div3" using `document.getElementById`.

**Html Preparation Code**

The html preparation code creates a simple HTML structure with three nested div elements, where `div2` contains `div3`, which is inside `box`. This setup simulates a scenario where we need to check if an element (`clicked`) is inside another element (`box`).

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **contains**: Checks if the `clicked` element is directly inside the `box` element using the `contains()` method.
2. **closest**: Checks if there's a closer element to the root of the HTML document that contains the `clicked` element by finding the closest ancestor with the id "div1" (the outermost element) using the `closest()` method.

**Library and Its Purpose**

Both tests use native JavaScript methods, which are built-in functions provided by the browser. The `contains()` and `closest()` methods are part of the W3C DOM API and are used to query the document for elements that match a certain condition.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no specific JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in these benchmarks. However, it's worth noting that the use of `const` keyword for variable declaration is a modern JavaScript convention (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) and may not be supported by older browsers.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **contains()**: This method checks if the element is directly inside another element, which can lead to faster lookup times if the DOM structure is dense.
2. **closest()**: This method searches for a closer ancestor element that contains the target element, which can be slower due to the additional search space, but may be necessary in more complex DOM structures.

**Considerations**

* The choice of `contains()` vs `closest()` depends on the specific use case and the structure of the DOM.
* In general, `contains()` is faster for simple, dense DOM structures, while `closest()` may be preferred for more complex, hierarchical DOM structures.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to measure performance for other types of DOM queries or operations, MeasureThat.net provides a wide range of benchmarks that cover various scenarios. Some examples include:

* Querying the DOM using `querySelector` and `querySelectorAll`
* Manipulating the DOM using `appendChild`, `insertBefore`, etc.
* Working with CSS selectors
* Using CSS preprocessors like Sass or Less

Keep in mind that MeasureThat.net is primarily designed for JavaScript microbenchmarks, so it might not be suitable for benchmarks involving other programming languages.

contains vs closest 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `contains vs closest`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

contains

closest

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

contains vs closest 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: contains vs closest

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

contains

closest

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `contains vs closest`