Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
jQuery Selector
(version: 0)
testing .find vs inline selector
Comparing performance of:
Inline Selector vs Find
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.0/jquery.min.js"></script> <div id="#test-root"><div class="test-child"></div></div>
Tests:
Inline Selector
jQuery('#test-root .test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');
Find
jQuery('#test-root').find('.test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Inline Selector
Find
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):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Overview** The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches for selecting elements in jQuery: inline selectors (e.g., `#test-root .test-child`) versus the `find` method (e.g., `jQuery('#test-root').find('.test-child')`). The test measures how fast each approach can apply a CSS rule to an element. **Options Compared** * **Inline Selector**: Using a jQuery selector with the `#` and `.` notation to directly select elements from the DOM. * **Find Method**: Using the `find` method, which searches for elements within a parent element that match a specified selector. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** * **Inline Selector**: + Pros: faster because it doesn't require creating a jQuery object or searching through the DOM tree. It directly accesses the element in memory. + Cons: requires the `#` and `.` notation, which can be error-prone if not used correctly. * **Find Method**: + Pros: more flexible and easier to read than inline selectors, as it uses a descriptive selector that's easier to maintain. + Cons: slower because it creates a jQuery object and searches through the DOM tree. **Library and Its Purpose** The `jQuery` library is used for both test cases. It provides a convenient way to manipulate elements in the DOM, as well as a set of selectors that can be used to target specific elements. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** The benchmark uses jQuery's chaining method (`css('border', '1px solid red')`) to apply a CSS rule to an element. This is a common pattern in JavaScript development, where methods are chained together to perform complex operations on objects. **Other Considerations** * **DOM Manipulation**: Both test cases modify the DOM by adding or modifying elements. * **Browser Consistency**: The benchmark uses Firefox 120 as the target browser, which might not represent other browsers' behavior. However, it's a good starting point for comparing JavaScript performance across different browsers. **Alternatives** For measuring JavaScript performance, alternatives to MeasureThat.net include: * jsperf (now archived): A popular benchmarking tool that allows users to create and compare benchmarks. * Benchmark.js: A lightweight, extensible benchmarking library for Node.js applications. * browserbench: A web-based benchmarking tool developed by Google that measures the performance of JavaScript engines. Keep in mind that each alternative has its strengths and weaknesses, and some might be better suited for specific use cases or programming languages.
Related benchmarks:
jQuery Selector #2
find vs. direct selection
jQuery Selector v2
jQuery Selector v3
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?