Benchmark: test1112 - 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>
<div id="testThisId"></div>

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;
Vanilla JS (get by id)
var el = document.getElementById('testThisId'); 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
Vanilla JS (get by id)

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test is designed to compare the performance of different JavaScript methods for retrieving an element by its class name or ID in a web page. The test consists of four individual test cases, each using a different method:

1. Vanilla JS (using `document.getElementsByClassName`)
2. Vanilla JS querySelector
3. Vanilla JS (using `document.getElementById`)
4. jQuery

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, the library used is jQuery, which is a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

1. **Vanilla JS (using `document.getElementsByClassName`):**
	* Pros: Lightweight, doesn't require additional libraries.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the need to iterate over all elements with the specified class name.
2. **Vanilla JS querySelector:**
	* Pros: More efficient than `document.getElementsByClassName`, as it only returns the first element matching the selector.
	* Cons: Requires modern browsers that support the `querySelector` method (introduced in 2009).
3. **Vanilla JS (using `document.getElementById`):**
	* Pros: Can be faster than using class names, as it directly retrieves the element by its ID.
	* Cons: Requires the element to have an ID attribute, which might not always be the case.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax that's not widely supported. However, keep in mind that some older browsers might not support `querySelector` or other modern DOM methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to add more alternatives, here are a few options:

* **DOMParser:** A method for parsing HTML strings and retrieving elements by their class names or IDs.
* **CSSOM:** An API for interacting with CSS stylesheets and retrieving elements based on their class names or IDs.

However, these alternatives might not be as widely supported as the methods used in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

* Vanilla JS querySelector is the fastest method, followed by Vanilla JS (using `document.getElementById`).
* Vanilla JS is slower than both of the above.
* jQuery is the slowest method due to its overhead and lack of optimization for this specific use case.

These results are likely influenced by the fact that Chrome 80, which was used as the browser in the benchmark, supports modern DOM methods like `querySelector`.

Related benchmarks:

test1112 (version: 0)

nothing

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs Vanilla JS vs Vanilla JS querySelector vs Vanilla JS (get by id)

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

Vanilla JS

Vanilla JS querySelector

Vanilla JS (get by id)

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):