Benchmark: reparsing jQuery speed test

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Without caching
$('div div div div').html('hello'); $('div div div div').html('hello'); $('div div div div').html('hello'); $('div div div div').html('hello'); $('div div div div').html('hello'); $('div div div div').html('hello');
with caching
const div = $('div div div div'); div.html('hello'); div.html('hello'); div.html('hello'); div.html('hello'); div.html('hello'); div.html('hello');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Without caching
with caching

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, which aims to compare the performance of two approaches: re-executing the same jQuery method without caching and using caching.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests the execution speed of jQuery methods with and without caching. Specifically:

* Without caching: The benchmark defines five consecutive calls to `div.html('hello')`, where a variable `div` is created by selecting an element on the page.
* With caching: The benchmark also defines five consecutive calls to `div.html('hello')`, but this time, the variable `div` is assigned only once before the loops.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Without caching**: This approach requires re-executing the jQuery method for each iteration of the loop, resulting in more DOM mutations and potentially slower performance.
2. **With caching**: This approach stores the result of the first execution in a variable `div` and uses it across subsequent iterations, reducing the number of DOM mutations and potentially improving performance.

**Pros and Cons**

* Without caching:
	+ Pros: Simple to implement and understand.
	+ Cons: More DOM mutations can lead to slower performance due to repeated DOM updates.
* With caching:
	+ Pros: Reduces DOM mutations, which can improve performance.
	+ Cons: Requires storing the result of the first execution in a variable, which may not be desirable for all use cases.

**Library and its purpose**

In both test cases, jQuery is used as the library. The `$.html()` method is used to set the HTML content of an element.

**Special JS feature or syntax (none)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmark, you could also test other approaches, such as:

* Using a different library or implementation, like vanilla JavaScript or a alternative DOM library.
* Testing the performance of multiple caching mechanisms (e.g., using a cache object or storing results in an array).
* Comparing the performance of synchronous and asynchronous execution.

Keep in mind that the specific approach and test case will depend on the goals and requirements of your benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

reparsing jQuery speed test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Without caching vs with caching

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Without caching

with caching

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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