Benchmark: jquery data dom access

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div class="test" data-config="{&quot;foo&quot;:&quot;foo&quot;,&quot;bar&quot;:&quot;bar&quot;}" data-foo="foo" data-bar="bar"> </div>

Tests:

options
var options = $(".test").data("config"); var foo = options.foo; var bar = options.bar;
single
var foo = $(".test").data("foo"); var bar = $(".test").data("bar");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
options
single

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of two different ways to access DOM data in jQuery. The test cases compare the time it takes to access `config` and `foo` (and similarly for `bar`) using two methods:

1. `options.foo`
2. $(`.test`).data("foo")

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

A) Using the `options` object with dot notation (`options.foo`)
B) Accessing DOM data directly using jQuery's `.data()` method (`$(".test").data("foo")`)

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**Option A: Using the `options` object with dot notation**

Pros:

* Typically faster, as it avoids the overhead of calling a jQuery function and parsing JSON data
* Often preferred in production code

Cons:

* May require more memory allocations, as the `options` object is created and referenced multiple times
* Can lead to issues if the DOM data is not properly initialized or if there are circular references

**Option B: Accessing DOM data directly using jQuery's `.data()` method**

Pros:

* Can be more readable and concise in some cases
* Avoids potential issues with dot notation (e.g., `options` might be null or undefined)

Cons:

* Typically slower, as it involves calling a jQuery function and parsing JSON data
* May not be suitable for large datasets or complex DOM interactions

**Other considerations**

* The test case uses the jQuery library to access DOM data. jQuery's `.data()` method is used to store custom data associated with an element.
* The `$( ".test" ).data( "foo" )` expression is used to access the value of the "foo" property associated with the element.
* Both test cases assume that the `.config` and `.foo`, `.bar` properties are defined on the elements in question.

**Latest benchmark results**

The latest benchmark results show:

* For the `options` test case, Chrome 67 executed the code approximately 344,920 times per second.
* For the `single` test case, Chrome 67 executed the code approximately 193,555 times per second.

This suggests that option A (using dot notation) is generally faster than option B (accessing DOM data directly using jQuery's `.data()` method).

**Other alternatives**

While MeasureThat.net provides a simple and effective way to compare performance of different JavaScript approaches, other alternatives exist:

* Using `Object.assign()` or other methods to merge JSON objects
* Using the `eval()` function or `Function` constructor to execute custom code at runtime
* Utilizing native JavaScript features like `JSON.parse()` and `JSON.stringify()`
* Leveraging browser-specific optimizations, such as WebAssembly or Web Workers

Related benchmarks:

jquery data dom access (version: 0)

see difference accessing dom multiple times

Comparing performance of: options vs single

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

options

single

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):