Benchmark: jQuery 3.3.1 selector vs document.querySelector

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
<div id="testElement"></div>

Tests:

jQuery 3.3.1
var el = $("#testElement")[0]; var className = el.className;
Vanilla JS
var el = document.querySelector('#testElement'); var className = el.className;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery 3.3.1
Vanilla JS

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/134.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery 3.3.1	3866327.2 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS	6684943.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of jQuery 3.3.1 selector and vanilla JavaScript querySelector on two test cases. The goal is to determine which approach is faster for retrieving the class name of an HTML element.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **jQuery 3.3.1 Selector**: This is a part of the popular jQuery library, which provides a convenient way to select and manipulate HTML elements.
2. **Vanilla JavaScript querySelector**: This is a native JavaScript method that allows you to select elements using CSS selectors.

**Pros and Cons**

* **jQuery 3.3.1 Selector**:
	+ Pros: Convenient and easy to use, but may introduce overhead due to the library's complexity.
	+ Cons: May not be optimized for performance, can lead to slower execution times compared to vanilla JavaScript.
* **Vanilla JavaScript querySelector**:
	+ Pros: Native implementation, highly optimized, and provides better performance compared to jQuery.
	+ Cons: Requires a good understanding of CSS selectors and may have limitations in terms of browser support.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies HTML element manipulation. The `$(selector)` function uses a proprietary selector engine to match elements in the DOM tree. In this benchmark, jQuery 3.3.1 selector is used to select an element with the class name "testElement".

**Special JS Feature: None**

This benchmark does not utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between jQuery and vanilla JavaScript querySelector, consider the trade-off between convenience and performance. If you need a simple way to manipulate elements in your application, jQuery might be a good choice. However, if you prioritize performance and are willing to invest time in learning CSS selectors, vanilla JavaScript querySelector is likely a better option.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following:

1. **Other JavaScript libraries**: There are other JavaScript libraries, such as React or Angular, that provide similar functionality to jQuery.
2. **CSS-based selection**: You can use CSS selectors to select elements without relying on a library like jQuery or vanilla JavaScript querySelector.
3. **Browser-specific APIs**: Some browsers offer their own APIs for selecting elements, such as Microsoft Edge's `elementAt` method.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery 3.3.1 selector vs document.querySelector (version: 0)

Comparing speed of jQuery 3.3.1 selector and vanilla JS querySelector

Comparing performance of: jQuery 3.3.1 vs Vanilla JS

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery 3.3.1

Vanilla JS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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