Benchmark: document.querySelector vs jQuery

HTML Preparation code:

<div class="test"><p>1234</p></div>
<div class="test"><p>5678</p></div>
<div class="test">90</div>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Tests:

querySelector
document.querySelector('.test');
jQuery
$('.test');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
querySelector
jQuery

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:147.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/147.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 147 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
querySelector	12719607.0 Ops/sec
jQuery	5429052.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and analyze what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two methods: `document.querySelector('.test')` (also known as vanilla JavaScript) and `$('.test')` (jQuery). The test aims to determine which method is faster for selecting elements with a class name in HTML documents.

**Options compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. **Vanilla JavaScript**: `document.querySelector('.test')`
2. **jQuery**: `$('.test')`

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* **Vanilla JavaScript (querySelector)**:
	+ Pros: Lightweight, native to JavaScript, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: May be slower than jQuery due to the need for explicit DOM traversal and manipulation.
* **jQuery**:
	+ Pros: Faster execution speed due to optimized CSS selector implementations and caching of DOM elements.
	+ Cons: Requires additional library overhead (around 50KB), can be less intuitive for developers familiar with vanilla JavaScript.

**Other considerations**

* **Library usage**: The test case uses jQuery, which is a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation. The use of jQuery adds an extra layer of complexity to the benchmark, as it requires loading an external library.
* **Special JS feature/syntax**: There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to compare performance with other methods, here are some alternatives:

1. **CSS Selectors API**: A native JavaScript API for selecting elements based on CSS rules.
2. **Sizzle.js**: Another popular library for DOM selection and manipulation, often compared to jQuery.
3. **Vanilla CSS selector libraries**: Libraries like `css-select` or `fast-dom` provide optimized CSS selector implementations for vanilla JavaScript.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative methods depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and familiarity with the respective technologies.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in the MeasureThat.net benchmark!

Related benchmarks:

document.querySelector vs jQuery (version: 0)

As the name.

Comparing performance of: querySelector vs jQuery

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

querySelector

jQuery

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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