Benchmark: test1114 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.4.1.min.js"></script>
<div class="testElement"></div>

Script Preparation code:

function $q(selector, context) {
    return (context || document).querySelectorAll(selector);
}

Tests:

jQuery
var el = $(".testElement")[0]; var className = el.className;
Vanilla JS
var el = document.getElementsByClassName('testElement'); var className = el.className;
Vanilla JS querySelector
var el = document.querySelector('.testElement'); var className = el.className;
VanillaJS custom selector
var el = $q(".testElement"); var className = el.className;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
Vanilla JS
Vanilla JS querySelector
VanillaJS custom selector

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares four approaches to select an HTML element using JavaScript:

1. jQuery
2. Vanilla JS with `document.getElementsByClassName()`
3. Vanilla JS with `document.querySelector()`
4. A custom selector library (VanillaJS)

**Library used in the benchmark**

In this case, the custom selector library is called "VanillaJS". It's a custom implementation of the `querySelector` function, likely developed by the same team as MeasureThat.net.

According to the MeasureThat.net documentation, VanillaJS is a JavaScript library that provides a similar API to jQuery but with a more lightweight and efficient implementation. The purpose of using this library is to test its performance compared to other approaches.

**Options being compared**

The four options being tested are:

1. **jQuery**: A widely-used JavaScript library for DOM manipulation.
2. **Vanilla JS with `document.getElementsByClassName()`**: Using the native `getElementsByClassName` method, which returns a NodeList of elements that match the specified class name.
3. **Vanilla JS with `document.querySelector()`**: Using the native `querySelector` method to select an element by its CSS selector.
4. **VanillaJS custom selector**: Using the custom implementation of `querySelector` provided by VanillaJS.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

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

1. **jQuery**:
	* Pros: Mature, widely-used library with extensive documentation, robust feature set.
	* Cons: Additional overhead due to its complexity, might not be the best choice for small projects or performance-critical code.
2. **Vanilla JS with `document.getElementsByClassName()`**: Pros: Native method, no additional library required, simple implementation. Cons: Returns a NodeList (which is an array-like object), requires explicit iteration to access individual elements.
3. **Vanilla JS with `document.querySelector()`**: Pros: Efficient and fast, returns a single element or null if not found. Cons: Might be slower than other approaches for very large datasets.
4. **VanillaJS custom selector**:
	* Pros: Provides a lightweight alternative to jQuery, optimized for performance in MeasureThat.net's context.
	* Cons: Requires additional setup and understanding of the library's implementation.

**Other considerations**

1. **Browser support**: All four options should work across most modern browsers, but older browsers might require additional tweaks or polyfills.
2. **Performance impact**: The test results will likely vary depending on the specific use case, browser, and hardware. MeasureThat.net aims to provide a fair comparison of performance between these approaches.

**Alternatives**

If you need to select an HTML element using JavaScript, other alternatives include:

1. `document.querySelectorAll()`: A newer method that returns a NodeList of all matching elements.
2. `Element.prototype.matches()`: Introduced in modern browsers (Chrome 70+), this method provides a more concise way to match elements against CSS selectors.
3. **Other libraries**: Other JavaScript libraries, such as Lodash or Ramda, offer various utility functions for working with data structures and DOM manipulation.

In conclusion, the MeasureThat.net benchmark helps evaluate the performance of different approaches to select an HTML element using JavaScript. Understanding the pros and cons of each approach can aid in making informed decisions about which library or method to use for specific projects.

Related benchmarks:

test1114 (version: 0)

nothing

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs Vanilla JS vs Vanilla JS querySelector vs VanillaJS custom selector

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

Vanilla JS

Vanilla JS querySelector

VanillaJS custom selector

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):