Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
jQuery needs cached selectors.
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Bad vs Better vs Best
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.1.min.js"></script> <div id="testElement"></div>
Tests:
Bad
for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { $('#testElement').append('<p>'); if (i % 3 && i % 5) { $('#testElement').append(i); } else { if( i % 3 == 0 ) { $('#testElement').append('Fizz'); } if( i % 5 == 0 ) { $('#testElement').append('Buzz'); } if (i % 3 && i % 5) { $('#testElement').append(i); } } $('#testElement').append('</p>'); }
Better
var body = $("#testElement"); for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { body.append('<p>'); if (i % 3 && i % 5) { body.append(i); } else { if( i % 3 == 0 ) { body.append('Fizz'); } if( i % 5 == 0 ) { body.append('Buzz'); } if (i % 3 && i % 5) { body.append(i); } } body.append('</p>'); }
Best
var res = ""; for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { res += '<p>'; if (i % 3 && i % 5) { res += i; } else { if( i % 3 == 0 ) { res += 'Fizz'; } if( i % 5 == 0 ) { res += 'Buzz'; } if (i % 3 && i % 5) { res += i; } } res += '</p>'; } var body = $("#testElement"); body.append(res);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Bad
Better
Best
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons. **Benchmark Overview** The test case is designed to measure the performance of caching in JavaScript when using jQuery selectors. The benchmark compares three different approaches: 1. **Bad**: This approach appends elements directly to the DOM without caching or optimization. 2. **Better**: In this approach, jQuery's `$` function is used to select an element, and then append() method is called on that element. However, the `body` variable is not assigned until after appending all elements, which is inefficient. 3. **Best**: This approach uses a string concatenation technique to build the HTML content, and only assigns it to the `$` function once. **Comparison of Approaches** 1. **Bad**: This approach has the worst performance because it: * Appends elements directly to the DOM without caching or optimization. * Calls `append()` method multiple times on the same element, which can cause unnecessary DOM mutations. 2. **Better**: This approach is slightly better than the Bad approach but still inefficient due to the following reasons: * Calling `$` function and `body.append()` method multiple times is unnecessary. * Assigning the `body` variable after appending all elements causes an extra assignment, which can lead to slower execution. 3. **Best**: This approach outperforms the other two approaches because it: + Uses a string concatenation technique to build the HTML content, reducing the number of DOM mutations. + Only assigns the concatenated string to the `$` function once, minimizing unnecessary assignments. **Library and Special JS Features** In this benchmark, jQuery is used as a library. The `$` function is used to simplify DOM manipulation and provide an abstraction layer for working with elements. No special JavaScript features or syntax are explicitly mentioned in the benchmark. **Alternatives** Other approaches could be considered to optimize caching and performance: 1. **Caching**: Implementing explicit caching mechanisms, such as storing frequently accessed data in a cache object. 2. **Minification and Compression**: Minifying and compressing code can reduce the size of the JavaScript bundle, leading to faster execution times. 3. **Parallelization**: Using techniques like parallel processing or concurrent execution to take advantage of multi-core processors. By understanding these approaches and their trade-offs, developers can optimize their own JavaScript performance and caching strategies.
Related benchmarks:
Vanilla vs Jquery OPS/SEC 2
Jquery vs vanillaJS test
Compare jQuery 3.6.0 vs 3.2.1 performance
Create Element v1
Jquery vs vanila
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?