Benchmark: filter vs find - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1/jquery.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var divs = [];
for(var x=0; x<20; x++){
   var $page= $('<div class="page page-'+x+'">');
   for(var i=0;i<50;i++){
      var $line= $('<div class="line line-'+((x*50)+i)+'">');
      for(var j=0; j<5; j++){
         var $item= $('<div class="item">');
         $line.append($item);
      }
      $page.append($line);
   }
   divs[divs.length] = $page[0];
}
$(document.body).append($(divs));

Tests:

Filter
var $line = $(document.body).children('.page').children('.line-'+50);
Find
var $line = $(document.body).children('.page').find('.line-'+50);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Filter
Find

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches: filtering and finding elements in a HTML document using jQuery. The script preparation code generates a complex HTML structure with 20 pages, each containing 50 lines, and 5 items per line. This structure is appended to the `body` of the document.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Filtering**: Using `.children()` to filter elements by class name (`'.line-50'`) and then selecting the first matched element.
2. **Finding**: Using `.find()` to find elements that match a specific selector (`'.line-50'`).

**Pros and Cons**

* **Filtering (`.children()`)**
	+ Pros:
		- Can be faster for complex selection patterns, as it only traverses the DOM tree once.
		- More explicit control over the selection process.
	+ Cons:
		- May have a higher overhead due to the need to traverse the DOM tree, especially for large datasets.
* **Finding (`.find()`)**
	+ Pros:
		- Typically faster and more efficient than filtering, as it uses a more optimized algorithm under the hood.
		- Often easier to read and maintain, especially for simple selection patterns.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be suitable for complex selection patterns or large datasets.

**Library and Purpose**

In both benchmark definitions, jQuery is used. jQuery is a JavaScript library that provides a simplified way of interacting with HTML documents. In this case, it's used to:

* Generate the complex HTML structure using `$(document.body).append()`
* Select elements using `.children()` and `.find()`

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None mentioned in this specific benchmark definition.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to compare these approaches with other libraries or methods, here are some alternatives:

1. **CSS selectors**: Using CSS selectors (e.g., `div.page .line-50`) instead of jQuery's `.find()` method.
2. **Vanilla JavaScript**: Implementing the filtering and finding logic using pure JavaScript, without relying on jQuery's methods.
3. **Other libraries**: Using other JavaScript libraries or frameworks that provide similar functionality to jQuery, such as Lodash or React.

These alternatives can help you compare the performance of different approaches in a more general context, rather than being tied to jQuery specifically.

Related benchmarks:

filter vs find (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Filter vs Find

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Filter

Find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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