Benchmark: JS v JQ - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

JS
document.getElementById("e");
JQ
$("#e");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JS
JQ

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/128.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 128 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JS	5636972.5 Ops/sec
JQ	6448856.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the explanation into sections to make it easier to understand.

**Benchmark Definition and Preparation Code**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case created on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark is titled "JS v JQ" and describes the comparison between two JavaScript libraries: native JavaScript (denoted as "JS") and jQuery (denoted as "JQ").

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is empty, which means that no additional scripts need to be loaded or executed before running the benchmark. This is likely because the test case only requires a single line of code to be executed.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a link to load jQuery version 3.3.1 and an `<div>` element with an ID of "e", which will be used as a target for the benchmarking test.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **JS**: This test case uses native JavaScript to retrieve the element with ID "e" using `document.getElementById("e")`.
2. **JQ**: This test case uses jQuery to retrieve the element with ID "e" using `$("#e")`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options for retrieving an element by its ID:

1. **Native JavaScript (`document.getElementById("e")`)**: This approach uses the native DOM API to access the element.
2. **jQuery (`$("#e")`)**: This approach uses jQuery's wrapper around the native DOM API to access the element.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Native JavaScript (JS)**
	+ Pros:
		- Lightweight, as it doesn't require loading an additional library.
		- Can be more efficient, as it avoids the overhead of jQuery's wrapper.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower due to the overhead of parsing and compiling the native code.
* **jQuery (JQ)**
	+ Pros:
		- More convenient and readable syntax for DOM manipulation.
		- Often provides additional features and functionality out-of-the-box.
	+ Cons:
		- Adds an extra library dependency, which can increase page size and load times.
		- May be slower due to the overhead of jQuery's wrapper.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that provides a convenient and easy-to-use interface for DOM manipulation, event handling, and Ajax requests. It was created by John Resig in 2006 and has since become one of the most widely used libraries on the web.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmarking test case. The code is simple and straightforward, making it easy to understand and compare.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches for retrieving an element by its ID include:

1. **`document.querySelector("#e")`**: This approach uses the `querySelector` method instead of `getElementById`.
2. **`document.querySelectorAll("#e")[0]`**: This approach uses the `querySelectorAll` method and returns an array, accessing the first element.
3. **Using a library like React or Angular**: These frameworks provide their own ways of handling DOM manipulation and querying elements.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may have different performance characteristics or requirements depending on the specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

JS v JQ (version: 0)

JS v JQ

Comparing performance of: JS vs JQ

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JS

JQ

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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