Benchmark: jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.0.min.js"></script>
<div id="testElement"></div>

Tests:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
Vanilla JS

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 18_7 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/26.3 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 26 on iOS 18.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery	7817656.0 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS	42124628.0 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 and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the speed of getting an element by its ID using two approaches: jQuery (a JavaScript library) and Vanilla JS (plain JavaScript without any libraries).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **jQuery**: Uses the `$` function from the jQuery library to select elements.
2. **Vanilla JS**: Uses the `document.getElementById()` method to retrieve an element.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **jQuery:**
	+ Pros:
		- Easier to read and write, thanks to its intuitive syntax.
		- Can perform additional tasks on the retrieved element, like finding siblings or traversing the DOM.
	+ Cons:
		- Adds extra overhead due to the library's execution time and memory usage.
		- May not be suitable for all situations, especially when working with older browsers that don't support jQuery.
* **Vanilla JS:**
	+ Pros:
		- Lightweight and fast, since it relies on native DOM methods.
		- Works across most modern browsers without any additional libraries or dependencies.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be more verbose and harder to read for some developers, especially those unfamiliar with the `document.getElementById()` method.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM interactions by providing a concise syntax. It's particularly useful when working with complex HTML documents or older browsers that don't support modern JavaScript features. The `$` function used in this benchmark is equivalent to `document.querySelector("#testElement")`, but the latter requires more manual effort.

**JavaScript Feature/Syntax: Vanilla JS**

This test doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax, so we can focus on the comparison between jQuery and plain Vanilla JS.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore other approaches, consider these options:

* **DOM Traversals**: Instead of using `document.getElementById()`, you could use `document.querySelector()` or `document.querySelectorAll()` for more complex selectors.
* **Querying Libraries**: Other libraries like Sizzle (the engine behind jQuery) or a homegrown implementation can be used as alternatives to jQuery.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might have different performance characteristics and requirements, depending on your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById (version: 0)

Comparing speed of getting element by id with jQuery vs Vanilla JS

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs Vanilla JS

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

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):