Benchmark: JQuery Speed Test

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='//code.jquery.com/jquery-1.12.4.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq1124 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.4/jquery.min.js">
</script>
<script>
  var $jq224 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq331 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div>
  <ul id="menu">
    <li class="menu-item">1</li>
    <li class="menu-item">2</li>
    <li class="menu-item">3</li>
    <li class="menu-item">4</li>  
  </ul>
</div>

Script Preparation code:

function tests($) {
    $(".menu-item").eq(2).closest("ul").css({
      "background-color": "red"
    }).parent().css({
      "border": "1px solid blue"
    }).end().end().remove();
}

Tests:

$jq1124
tests($jq1124);
$jq224
tests($jq224);
$jq331
tests($jq331);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

$jq224

565K/s

$jq1124

538K/s

$jq331

528K/s

View exact numbers

✓ $jq224: 565,082 ops/sec
• $jq1124: 538,473 ops/sec
• $jq331: 527,772 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
$jq1124
$jq224
$jq331

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 143 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

$jq331

507K/s

$jq224

479K/s

$jq1124

466K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ $jq331	507,043 Ops/sec
$jq224	478,700 Ops/sec
$jq1124	465,958 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of different JavaScript libraries is crucial in web development, as it can significantly impact the speed and efficiency of a website.

The provided benchmark, MeasureThat.net, allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, including the "JQuery Speed Test" benchmark. This benchmark tests the performance of three different versions of jQuery: 1.12.4, 2.2.4, and 3.3.1.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is provided as a JSON object, which contains two parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code defines a function `tests` that takes a `$` variable as an argument. The function selects the second menu item in the `<ul>` element and applies styles to its parent and closest ancestor using jQuery's `closest`, `css`, and `remove` methods.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This code includes links to three different versions of jQuery, along with a test HTML document that contains an `<ul>` element with four menu items.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of the following options:

1. **jQuery 1.12.4 (v$jq1124)**: This version is used in the first iteration of the `tests` function.
2. **jQuery 2.2.4 (v$jq224)**: This version is used in the second iteration of the `tests` function.
3. **jQuery 3.3.1 (v$jq331)**: This version is used in the third iteration of the `tests` function.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief analysis of each option:

1. **Using an older version of jQuery (e.g., v$jq1124)**:
	* Pros: Older versions of jQuery might be less optimized or have fewer dependencies, which could result in faster execution times.
	* Cons: Using an outdated library can lead to compatibility issues and security vulnerabilities.
2. **Using a newer version of jQuery (e.g., v$jq331)**:
	* Pros: Newer versions of jQuery are often more optimized, with better performance and security features.
	* Cons: Newer versions might have additional dependencies or complexity, which could affect execution times.
3. **Using multiple iterations of the `tests` function**:
	* Pros: This approach allows for a direct comparison between different versions of jQuery without modifying the test code.
	* Cons: This approach can be less efficient, as it requires more iterations and might introduce additional overhead.

**Library and Its Purpose**

The libraries used in this benchmark are part of the jQuery family. The main purpose of these libraries is to simplify DOM manipulation, event handling, and Ajax requests for web developers.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, Promises, or modern ES6+ syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to create a similar benchmark, consider the following alternatives:

1. **Benchmarking frameworks**: Use frameworks like Benchmark.js, Benchmark-Test, or micro-benchmark to simplify the process of creating and running benchmarks.
2. **Web performance testing tools**: Utilize tools like WebPageTest, Lighthouse, or Chrome DevTools to measure web page performance and identify optimization opportunities.
3. **JavaScript performance benchmarking libraries**: Explore libraries like Fastbench or jsperf to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks.

Keep in mind that the specific requirements of your project will determine the best approach for creating a benchmark like this one.

JQuery Speed Test (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `$jq1124 vs $jq224 vs $jq331`

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

$jq1124

$jq224

$jq331

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

JQuery Speed Test (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: $jq1124 vs $jq224 vs $jq331

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

$jq1124

$jq224

$jq331

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

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: `$jq1124 vs $jq224 vs $jq331`