Benchmark: jQuery .first() vs :first vs .filter(:first) vs .eq(0) vs $(.get(0)) vs $([0]) #4

HTML Preparation code:

<div class="container">
  <div class="inner"></div>
  <div class="inner"></div>
  <div class="inner"></div>
  <div class="inner"></div>
  <div class="inner"></div>
</div>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Tests:

.first()
$('.container .inner').first();
:first
$('.container .inner:first');
.filter(:first)
$('.container .inner').filter(':first');
.eq(0)
$('.container .inner').eq(0);
$(.get(0))
$($('.container .inner').get(0));
$([0])
$($('.container .inner')[0]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
.first()
:first
.filter(:first)
.eq(0)
$(.get(0))
$([0])

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:139.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/139.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 139 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

.first()

521K/s

$([0])

473K/s

.eq(0)

444K/s

$(.get(0))

386K/s

.filter(:first)

237K/s

:first

200K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ .first()	521,019 Ops/sec
$([0])	472,512 Ops/sec
.eq(0)	443,746 Ops/sec
$(.get(0))	385,634 Ops/sec
.filter(:first)	237,291 Ops/sec
:first	200,431 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmarking test created using MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of different methods to access the first element in an HTML collection.

**Methods Compared**

The benchmark tests six different methods:

1. `$('.container .inner').first()`
2. `$('.container .inner:first)`
3. `$('.container .inner').filter(':first')`
4. `$('.container .inner').eq(0)`
5. `$($('.container .inner').get(0))`
6. `$($('.container .inner')[0])`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`$('.container .inner').first()`**: This method uses the jQuery `.first()` method, which returns the first element in a set of elements.
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward, easy to read.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient as other methods, especially for large sets of elements.
2. **`$('.container .inner:first)`**: This method uses the `:first` pseudo-class, which matches only the first element in a set of elements.
	* Pros: Efficient and concise, ideal for small to medium-sized sets of elements.
	* Cons: May be less readable than other methods, especially for complex queries.
3. **`$('.container .inner').filter(':first')`**: This method uses the jQuery `.filter()` method with the `:first` pseudo-class, which filters a set of elements and returns only the first match.
	* Pros: Efficient and flexible, can be used for more complex filtering scenarios.
	* Cons: May be slower than other methods due to the extra filtering step.
4. **`$('.container .inner').eq(0)`**: This method uses the jQuery `.eq()` method, which returns a set of elements at specific indices (in this case, index 0).
	* Pros: Efficient and easy to use for small sets of elements.
	* Cons: May not be as readable or intuitive as other methods.
5. **`$($('.container .inner').get(0))`**: This method uses the jQuery `.get()` method, which returns an array of DOM elements.
	* Pros: Can be used in cases where `eq()` is not available (e.g., older browsers).
	* Cons: May be slower and less efficient than other methods due to the extra indexing step.
6. **`$($('.container .inner')[0])`**: This method uses the square bracket notation (`[0]`) to access the first element in an array of DOM elements.
	* Pros: Concise and easy to read, ideal for small sets of elements.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient or readable for large sets of elements.

**Library and Purpose**

The benchmark tests use jQuery as the underlying library. jQuery provides a convenient and intuitive API for working with HTML collections, making it easier to write efficient and readable code.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark that requires specific knowledge or expertise.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative methods for accessing the first element in an HTML collection, here are a few options:

* Using `document.querySelector()` instead of jQuery: This method uses CSS selectors to select the first element in a set of elements.
* Using vanilla JavaScript array indexing (`[0]`): This method uses square bracket notation to access the first element in an array-like object (e.g., an HTML collection).
* Using `Array.prototype.find()` or `Array.prototype.findIndex()`: These methods use callback functions to find the first match in a set of elements.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require more expertise and knowledge of JavaScript fundamentals, especially for complex queries or large sets of elements.

jQuery .first() vs :first vs .filter(:first) vs .eq(0) vs $(.get(0)) vs $([0]) #4 (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `.first() vs :first vs .filter(:first) vs .eq(0) vs $(.get(0)) vs $([0])`

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

.first()

:first

.filter(:first)

.eq(0)

$(.get(0))

$([0])

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

jQuery .first() vs :first vs .filter(:first) vs .eq(0) vs $(.get(0)) vs $([0]) #4 (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: .first() vs :first vs .filter(:first) vs .eq(0) vs $(.get(0)) vs $([0])

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

.first()

:first

.filter(:first)

.eq(0)

$(.get(0))

$([0])

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `.first() vs :first vs .filter(:first) vs .eq(0) vs $(.get(0)) vs $([0])`