Benchmark: select test - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<select>
	<option value="1"></option>
  	<option value="2"></option>
  	<option value="3"></option>
</select>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var select = $('select');
var values = [];

Tests:

jq
$.each(select.find('option'), function() { values.push($(this).attr('value')); });
js
let children = select[0].children; for(var i = 0; i < children.length; i++) { values.push(children[i].value); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jq
js

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.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test on the MeasureThat.net website. The benchmark tests the performance of two approaches to retrieve values from an HTML `select` element.

**Approach 1: jQuery (`jq`)**
```javascript
$.each(select.find('option'), function() {
  values.push($(this).attr('value'));
});
```
This approach uses the jQuery library to select all `option` elements within the `select` element and then iterates over them using `.each()`, pushing the value of each option into the `values` array.

**Approach 2: Native JavaScript (`js`)**
```javascript
let children = select[0].children;
for (var i = 0; i < children.length; i++) {
  values.push(children[i].value);
}
```
This approach uses native JavaScript to access the first `select` element (`select[0]`) and then iterates over its child elements using a traditional `for` loop, pushing the value of each option into the `values` array.

**Comparison**

Both approaches have their pros and cons:

* **jQuery (`jq`)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Easier to read and maintain, as it leverages a well-known library.
		- Less error-prone, as jQuery handles DOM manipulation for you.
	+ Cons:
		- Adds an additional dependency (jQuery) to the benchmark, which may impact performance.
		- May be slower due to the overhead of jQuery's event loop and DOM manipulation.
* **Native JavaScript (`js`)**:
	+ Pros:
		- No additional dependencies, as it only uses built-in JavaScript functionality.
		- May be faster, as it avoids the overhead of jQuery's event loop and DOM manipulation.
	+ Cons:
		- More error-prone, as you need to manually handle DOM interactions.
		- Less readable and maintainable, as you need to understand native JavaScript's intricacies.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation and event handling. In this benchmark, it's used to simplify the process of iterating over options within the `select` element.

**Special JS feature or syntax: None**

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

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to use alternative approaches, here are a few:

* **Vanilla HTML5 APIs**: Instead of using jQuery or native JavaScript, you could use vanilla HTML5 APIs like `Document.querySelectorAll()` and `Array.prototype.forEach()`.
* **A library like Lodash**: If you want a more concise way to iterate over options, you could use a library like Lodash's `forEach` function.
* **A custom solution**: You could also write a custom solution using native JavaScript and DOM APIs, leveraging techniques like query selector or element iteration.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preferences.

Related benchmarks:

select test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jq vs js

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jq

js

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):