Benchmark: fn vs jq - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

JQ
for(let i = 0; i < 100; i++) { let a = $('.one').html(); $('.one').append(i); }
JQloaded
let d = $('.one'); for(let i = 0; i < 100; i++) { let a = d.html(); d.append(i); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JQ
JQloaded

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 data and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to achieve a specific task: modifying HTML content using jQuery (a JavaScript library) versus using a native JavaScript loop.

**What's Being Tested?**

The benchmark is testing the performance of two test cases:

1. **JQ**: This test case uses jQuery's `$('.one')` selector to select an element with class `.one`, and then appends HTML content to it using `.append(i)`.
2. **JQloaded**: This test case does essentially the same thing as JQ, but it first retrieves the jQuery library via a script tag (`<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>`), and then uses it to select the element.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation and provides a convenient way to select elements, handle events, and more. In this benchmark, jQuery is used to:

* Select an element with class `.one` using `$('.one')`
* Append HTML content to the selected element using `.append(i)`

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **JQ**:
	* Pros: Easy to read and maintain, uses jQuery's built-in selector, which is optimized for performance.
	* Cons: Requires jQuery library to be loaded, may have additional overhead due to the need to download and parse the library.
2. **JQloaded**:
	* Pros: Does not require loading an external library, reduces overhead by only loading what's needed at runtime.
	* Cons: More verbose code, requires manual handling of asynchronous script loading.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Browser Caching**: Since the benchmark runs in a headless browser, it may not account for browser caching effects. In a real-world scenario, loading an external library like jQuery would be subject to caching, which could impact performance.
2. **Code Size and Complexity**: The size and complexity of the code can affect performance. JQloaded has more complex code due to the need to load and parse the jQuery library manually.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches that are not shown in this benchmark include:

1. Using native JavaScript methods, such as `document.createElement()` and `appendChild()`, to create and append HTML elements.
2. Using a different library or framework that provides similar functionality to jQuery.
3. Optimizing the code using techniques like memoization or caching to reduce overhead.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might not be directly comparable to JQ and JQloaded, as they would require significant changes to the benchmark setup and test cases.

Related benchmarks:

fn vs jq (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JQ vs JQloaded

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JQ

JQloaded

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):