Benchmark: jQuery Id selector vs Document.getElementById vs Document.querySelector

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.0.min.js"></script>
<div id="testElement"></div>

Tests:

Vanilla JS
var el = document.getElementById('testElement'); var className = el.className;
Vanilla JS querySelector
var el = document.querySelector('#testElement'); var className = el.className;
jQuery
var el = $('#testElement'); var className = el.className;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Vanilla JS
Vanilla JS querySelector
jQuery

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Vanilla JS	33888492.0 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS querySelector	7284525.5 Ops/sec
jQuery	4149320.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test for comparing the performance of three different methods to retrieve an element by its ID in JavaScript:

1. **Vanilla JS**: Using `document.getElementById` method without any additional libraries.
2. **Vanilla JS querySelector**: Using the `querySelector` method, which is similar to `getElementById`, but provides more flexibility and options for selecting elements.
3. **jQuery**: Using the `$` function provided by the jQuery library to select elements.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests the following aspects of each approach:

* Execution time: The time it takes to execute each test case, measured in executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond).
* CPU usage: Although not explicitly mentioned, this benchmark likely measures CPU usage as well, which can indicate performance differences between the approaches.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Vanilla JS**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, no dependencies required.
	* Cons: Less flexible than `querySelector`, may be slower for more complex selections.
2. **Vanilla JS querySelector**:
	* Pros: More flexible and powerful than `getElementById`, faster execution times.
	* Cons: Requires more code to achieve the same result as `getElementById`.
3. **jQuery**:
	* Pros: Simplifies element selection, provides a consistent API across browsers.
	* Cons: Adds an external library dependency, which can increase page load time.

**Library and Its Purpose**

The jQuery library is used in this benchmark to provide a consistent API for selecting elements. The `$` function is used to select the `#testElement` element by its ID.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided code or JSON.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* Complexity of your selection: If you need to select multiple elements with different IDs or use more complex selectors, `querySelector` may be a better choice.
* Browser compatibility: Although not explicitly tested here, `querySelector` is widely supported across modern browsers, while `getElementById` and jQuery may have variations in behavior.
* Page load time: Using an external library like jQuery can increase page load times, so consider this when optimizing your application.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to these approaches include:

* **CSS selectors**: Some browsers support CSS selectors for element selection, which can be used as a lightweight alternative to `querySelector`.
* **Modern JavaScript APIs**: Browsers have introduced modern JavaScript APIs like `DOMTokenList` and `Element.prototype.matchSelector()` that provide more efficient and flexible ways to select elements.
* **Library alternatives**: Other libraries like Lodash or Ramda provide similar functionality to jQuery, but with a smaller footprint.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery Id selector vs Document.getElementById vs Document.querySelector (version: 0)

Comparing speed of getting element by id with jQuery vs Vanilla JS vs Vanilla JS querySelector

Comparing performance of: Vanilla JS vs Vanilla JS querySelector vs jQuery

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Vanilla JS

Vanilla JS querySelector

jQuery

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):