Benchmark: d body - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="A">gfdgd</div>
<p id="B">1234</p>

Script Preparation code:

var A = document;
var B = document.body;
var C = function(V){document.body.querySelector(V);}
var D = function(V){B.querySelector(V);}

Tests:

1
const E1 = A.body.querySelector("#A");
2
const E2 = B.querySelector("#A");
3
const E3 = document.body.querySelector("#A");
4
const E4 = C("#A");
5
const E5 = D("#A");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2
3
4
5

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/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

2.2M/s

1.9M/s

1.7M/s

1.4M/s

1.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ 2	2,170,318 Ops/sec
1	1,876,622 Ops/sec
5	1,745,332 Ops/sec
3	1,364,095 Ops/sec
4	1,145,371 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!

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmarking test case for measuring the performance difference between different methods of accessing an element on a `document.body` node. The tests are designed to compare the performance of:

1. Direct property access (`A.body.querySelector("#A")`)
2. Property access via object literal syntax (`B.querySelector("#A")`)
3. Method call with `querySelector` method (`C(" #A")`)
4. Function call with `querySelector` method (`D(" #A")`)

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing four different approaches to accessing an element on a `document.body` node:

1. **Direct property access**: `A.body.querySelector("#A")`
	* Pros: Fast and concise
	* Cons: May not work correctly in older browsers or with certain HTML structures
2. **Property access via object literal syntax**: `B.querySelector("#A")`
	* Pros: More readable and maintainable, works in most modern browsers
	* Cons: May be slower than direct property access due to the additional indirection
3. **Method call with `querySelector` method**: `C(" #A")`
	* Pros: Provides a clear separation between data retrieval and business logic
	* Cons: May be slower than direct property access or property access via object literal syntax
4. **Function call with `querySelector` method**: `D(" #A")`
	* Pros: Similar to method call, but uses a function instead of an object literal
	* Cons: May be slower than direct property access or property access via object literal syntax

**Libraries used**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that `querySelector` and `querySelectorAll` methods are part of the W3C DOM API and are supported by most modern browsers.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The tests only involve basic access patterns using `document.body` and HTML elements.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to test alternative approaches, some possible options could include:

* Using a different method for accessing the element, such as `getElementsByClassName` or `getElementsByTagName`
* Using a library like jQuery to simplify DOM access
* Testing performance with different caching strategies or data structures
* Adding error handling or edge cases to the benchmark

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmarking test case and might not be relevant to the specific use case being tested.

d body (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `1 vs 2 vs 3 vs 4 vs 5`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

1

2

3

4

5

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

d body (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2 vs 3 vs 4 vs 5

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

1

2

3

4

5

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: `1 vs 2 vs 3 vs 4 vs 5`