Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
wyygoUfhcrzEqJb8aQVZyF2PFTky4fDV
(version: 7)
Comparing performance of:
A vs B vs C
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<div class="row" style="display:none"> <div class="x-frame x-id-2"> <div class="x-hit"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> <div class="x-block"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> </div> <div class="x-frame x-id-2"> <div class="x-hit"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> <div class="x-block"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> </div> <div class="x-frame x-id-2"> <div class="x-hit"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> <div class="x-block"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> </div> <div class="x-frame"> <div class="x-hit"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> <div class="x-block"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> </div> <div class="x-frame x-id-1"> <div class="x-hit"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> <div class="x-block"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> </div> <div class="x-frame x-id-1"> <div class="x-hit"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> <div class="x-block"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> </div> <div class="x-frame x-id-1"> <div class="x-hit"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> <div class="x-block"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> </div> <div class="x-frame x-id-1"> <div class="x-hit"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> <div class="x-block"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> </div> <div class="x-frame x-id-1"> <div class="x-hit"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> <div class="x-block"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> </div> <div class="x-frame"> <div class="x-hit"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> <div class="x-block"> <div class="x-overlay"></div> </div> </div> </div>
Script Preparation code:
var selector = ['.x-id-1', '.x-id-2']
Tests:
A
var s = $(selector.join(',')) s.each(function() { $(this).children('.x-hit').children('.x-overlay').empty() $(this).children('.x-block').children('.x-overlay').empty() }) s.attr('class', 'x-frame')
B
var s = $(selector.join(',')) s.each(function() { var ss = $(this); ss.find('> .x-hit > .x-overlay').empty() ss.find('> .x-block > .x-overlay').empty() }) s.attr('class', 'x-frame')
C
selector.forEach(s => { $(s + ' > .x-hit > .x-overlay').empty() $(s + ' > .x-block > .x-overlay').empty() }) $(selector.join(',')).attr('class', 'x-frame')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
A
B
C
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'll break down the benchmark and its options for you. **Benchmark Definition:** The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript code that manipulates a DOM (Document Object Model) structure. The DOM structure consists of multiple frames, each containing a hit area with an overlay element. The goal is to empty the overlay elements within the hit areas across different types of frames. **Options Compared:** There are three options compared: 1. **A**: Uses jQuery's `each()` method to iterate over the frames and then uses `$(this).children('.x-hit').children('.x-overlay').empty()` and `$(this).children('.x-block').children('.x-overlay').empty()` to clear the overlay elements. 2. **B**: Similar to A, but uses `var ss = $(this);` to store the jQuery object for the current frame and then uses `ss.find('> .x-hit > .x-overlay').empty()` and `ss.find('> .x-block > .x-overlay').empty()` to clear the overlay elements. 3. **C**: Uses an array `forEach()` loop with a callback function to iterate over the frames, but does not use jQuery. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach:** 1. **A (jQuery)**: * Pros: + Easy to read and maintain due to jQuery's concise syntax. + Familiarity for developers already using jQuery. * Cons: + Requires a library (jQuery) to be included, which may add overhead. + May have performance implications due to the need for DOM manipulation. 2. **B (jQuery with stored variable)**: * Pros: + Similar performance characteristics to A, but avoids an extra jQuery object creation. * Cons: + Requires storing a reference to the jQuery object, which may add unnecessary overhead. 3. **C (forEach loop without jQuery)**: * Pros: + Does not require any external libraries or DOM manipulation, reducing overhead. + May be faster due to the simplicity of the implementation. * Cons: + Requires manual iteration and string concatenation, which may be less readable. **Latest Benchmark Results:** The latest results show: 1. **B (jQuery with stored variable)**: The fastest execution time among all options, with an average of 14318.830078125 executions per second. 2. **A (jQuery)**: Second-fastest, with an average of 14321.38671875 executions per second. 3. **C (forEach loop without jQuery)**: The slowest option, with an average of 6520.765625 executions per second. Overall, the choice between these options depends on your specific use case and priorities: * If you prioritize simplicity and don't mind a slight performance hit due to DOM manipulation, A (jQuery) might be the best choice. * If you prefer not to include jQuery and can tolerate slightly more complex code, B (jQuery with stored variable) is another viable option. * If speed is crucial and you're willing to sacrifice readability for it, C (forEach loop without jQuery) could be a good choice.
Related benchmarks:
aoA6ApW486QVzbnDH8DbTzRJQgUzwPmq
id event listener
getElementsByClassName, querySelector
contains2 vs closest2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?