Benchmark: querySelector vs Closest!!

HTML Preparation code:

<div><div><div>

<div data-parent="parent-id">

  <div><div>

    <div data-target="target-id">

      <div><div>

        <div data-clicked="clicked-id"></div>

      </div></div>

    </div>

  </div></div>

</div>

</div></div></div>

Tests:

Closest?
document.querySelector('[data-parent="parent-id"]').closest('[data-clicked="clicked-id"]')
querySelector?
document.querySelector('[data-parent="parent-id"]').querySelector('[data-clicked="clicked-id"]')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Closest?
querySelector?

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:135.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/135.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 135 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Closest?	1347006.4 Ops/sec
querySelector?	1416411.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to selecting elements in HTML documents: `querySelector` and `closest`. The test cases are designed to measure the performance difference between these two methods on a complex HTML structure.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **`querySelector`**: This method is used to select an element by its CSS selector. It's a widely supported and efficient way to navigate the DOM.
2. **`closest`**: This method is used to find the closest ancestor of a given element that matches a specified selector. It's often used in conjunction with `querySelector` to traverse the DOM.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`querySelector`**:
	+ Pros: Efficient, widely supported, and easy to use.
	+ Cons: May not be suitable for complex queries or large documents, as it can lead to slower performance.
* **`closest`**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster than `querySelector` in some cases, especially when searching for a specific ancestor element.
	+ Cons: Requires additional processing to find the closest ancestor, which may add overhead.

**Library and Purpose**

In the provided benchmark, no external libraries are used. The test cases rely on native JavaScript methods for DOM manipulation.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that `closest` was introduced in modern browsers as a polyfill for older versions of Internet Explorer.

**Benchmark Preparation Code and Definition**

The benchmark preparation code generates an HTML structure with nested elements, which serves as the test environment. The HTML structure includes various attributes (e.g., `data-parent`, `data-target`, and `data-clicked`) that are used in the test cases to simulate real-world scenarios.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for DOM selection, here are a few options:

* **`getElementsByClassName`**: This method can be faster than `querySelector` when searching for elements with a specific class name.
* **`document.querySelectorAll`**: This method is similar to `querySelector`, but returns an array of matching elements instead of a single element.
* **`CSS Selectors`**: Some browsers support CSS selectors in their native JavaScript APIs. For example, you can use the `getElementsByTagName` method with a CSS selector to select elements.

Keep in mind that each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

querySelector vs Closest!! (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Closest? vs querySelector?

Created: 11 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Closest?

querySelector?

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):