Benchmark: Node closest vs node contains forkedd

HTML Preparation code:

<div class="parent">
  <div>
    <div>
      <div>
        <div>
          <div>
            <div>
              <div>
                <div>
                  <div>
  <div class="child">
	</div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </div>
</div>

Script Preparation code:

var parent = document.querySelector(".parent");
var child = document.querySelector(".child");

Tests:

Contains
var x = parent.contains(child)
Closest
var x = child.closest('.parent')

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) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Contains

3.7M/s

Closest

1.6M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Contains	3,736,097 Ops/sec
Closest	1,572,808 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 JSON data and explain what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark, named "Node closest vs node contains forkedd", tests two different methods to find an ancestor element within a DOM tree: `contains()` and `closest()`. These methods are used to traverse the DOM and find elements by navigating up the tree from a given element.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. `contains()`: This method returns a boolean value indicating whether the specified element is contained within another element.
2. `closest()`: This method returns the closest ancestor element that matches the specified selector.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **`contains()`**:
	+ Pros:
		- Simple to implement, as it only requires checking if one element contains another using the `includes()` or `forEach()` methods.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slower due to the potential need for multiple checks (e.g., checking if an element is contained within a parent and then a grandparent).
* **`closest()```**:
	+ Pros:
		- More efficient, as it only requires navigating up the DOM tree until a matching ancestor element is found.
	+ Cons:
		- May require additional libraries or polyfills to support the `closest()` method.

**Library and Syntax Used**

In this benchmark, the `closest()` method is used from the jQuery library. The purpose of jQuery is to simplify DOM manipulation and provide a consistent way to interact with web pages. In this case, it's used to find the closest ancestor element that matches a given selector.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None are mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If `closest()` is not supported by all browsers (or libraries), alternative methods can be used:

* `parentElement` property: This can be used to access the parent element of an HTML element.
* `parentNode`: This returns the parent node of a given DOM element.

While these alternatives exist, they may require additional code or library support to work consistently across all browsers and environments.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided preparation code generates the necessary HTML structure with a deeply nested DOM tree, which is used as the test subject for both `contains()` and `closest()`. This structure allows for a more realistic representation of how these methods are typically used in real-world applications.

In summary, this benchmark tests two common methods for finding ancestor elements within a DOM tree: `contains()` and `closest()`. The results will provide insight into the relative performance of each approach on various browsers and devices.

Node closest vs node contains forkedd (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Contains vs Closest`

Created: 2 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):

Node closest vs node contains forkedd (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Contains vs Closest

Created: 2 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`