Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Vanilla vs Jquery OPS/SEC 2
(version: 1)
Comparing performance of:
query selector vs get element by id
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Registered User
Go to the latest result
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=505805" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
get element by id
8.1M/s
query selector
4.5M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
get element by id
8,112,720 Ops/sec
query selector
4,472,946 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
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
spread vs for of
Compare jQuery 3.6.0 vs 3.2.1 performance
Compare jQuery 3.6.1 vs. 3.2.1 Performance
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?