Benchmark: Vanilla vs Jquery OPS/SEC 2

HTML Preparation code:


<div id='test1'></div>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Tests:

query selector
document.querySelector('#test1');
get element by id
document.getElementById('test1');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
query selector
get element by id

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/121.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
query selector	4472946.0 Ops/sec
get element by id	8112720.5 Ops/sec

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 definition and its related explanations.

**Benchmark Definition and Options**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark named "Vanilla vs Jquery OPS/SEC 2". The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Vanilla**: Using vanilla JavaScript to implement an operation (in this case, querying an element by ID or selecting a DOM node using `document.querySelector`).
2. **Jquery**: Using the jQuery library to implement the same operation.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

### Vanilla

Pros:

* No dependency on external libraries, making it easier to test in isolation.
* Can be more performant since there's no overhead from a library.
* Easier to debug and understand for developers familiar with vanilla JavaScript.

Cons:

* Requires manual implementation, which can lead to inconsistencies or errors if not implemented correctly.
* May require additional setup or context (e.g., DOM manipulation) that's not present in the benchmark.

### Jquery

Pros:

* Provides a well-maintained and widely-used library that simplifies DOM manipulation and event handling.
* Often includes optimized implementations of common operations, reducing code duplication.
* Can be easier to use for developers familiar with jQuery.

Cons:

* Introduces additional overhead from the library, potentially affecting performance.
* May require additional setup or configuration (e.g., including the jQuery library in the benchmark).
* Can lead to inconsistencies if not used correctly.

**Library: jQuery**

In this specific benchmark, jQuery is used as a reference implementation for the `document.getElementById` operation. The `script` tag in the HTML preparation code includes the latest version of jQuery (3.3.1) from a CDN. This means that any performance differences between vanilla and jQuery implementations are isolated to the actual JavaScript code.

**Special JS Feature: Nullish Coalescing Operator (`??`)**

The provided benchmark definition does not explicitly use the nullish coalescing operator (`??`). However, in modern JavaScript (from ECMAScript 2020 onwards), `??` can be used as a shorthand for safely navigating null or undefined values. For example:
```javascript
const result = elementId ?? 'default';
```
This operator is not mentioned in the benchmark definition, but it's worth noting that some implementations might use it under the hood.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to consider when creating benchmarks:

1. **ES modules**: Using ES modules (import/export syntax) instead of CommonJS requires or scripts can simplify dependencies and improve test isolation.
2. **Proxies**: Using Proxies can provide a more efficient way to manipulate objects in JavaScript, but it might require additional setup or context.
3. **Web Workers**: If performance-critical operations are computationally intensive, Web Workers can be used to parallelize tasks and improve throughput.

Keep in mind that the specific alternatives will depend on the requirements and goals of your benchmarking project.

Related benchmarks:

Vanilla vs Jquery OPS/SEC 2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: query selector vs get element by id

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

query selector

get element by id

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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