Benchmark: JQuery: test prepare div block with content and attribute (10 elements)

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="parent"></div>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.4.1/jquery.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = ["1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "Test1", "6", "7"];
var parentElement = $("#parent");

Tests:

With attr and html
let element = $(`<div><a id="tr_1" data-target="tr_5" aria-controls="tr_6"> <svg id="tr_2"></svg> <span id="tr_3"></span> <svg></svg> <div id="tr_4" data-target="tr_7"> </div> </div>`); for (let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { let element1 = element.clone(); element1.find("a").attr("id", data[0]).attr("data-target", data[1]).attr("aria-controls", data[2]); element1.find("#tr_2").attr("id", data[3] + i); element1.find("span").attr("id", data[4]).html(data[5]); element1.find("div").attr("id", data[6] + i).attr("data-target", data[7]); element1.prependTo(parentElement); } parentElement.empty();
Without find
for (let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { let element = $(`<div><a id="${data[0]}" data-target="${data[1]}" aria-controls="${data[2]}"> <svg id="${data[3] + i}"></svg> <span id="${data[4]}">${data[5]}</span> <div id="${data[6] + i}" data-target="${data[7]}"> </div> </div>`); element.prependTo(parentElement); $(`#${data[3] + i}`); $(`#${data[6] + i}`); } parentElement.empty();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
With attr and html
Without find

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website where users can create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks to compare different approaches for a specific task. In this case, we have two benchmark definitions: "With attr and html" and "Without find". We'll break down what's tested in each approach, their pros and cons, and discuss the library used.

**Benchmark Definition 1: With attr and html**

This test case is designed to prepare a div block with content (100 elements) using jQuery. The preparation code includes:

* A script that creates an array `data` with values for `id`, `data-target`, `aria-controls`, and other attributes.
* An HTML string that defines the parent element, which will contain the cloned div blocks.

The test case uses jQuery's `$(` function to create a new DOM element from the HTML string. It then clones this element 100 times using the `clone()` method and prepends each clone to the parent element. Finally, it empties the parent element.

**Pros and Cons:**

* Pros:
	+ Easy to read and understand
	+ Uses jQuery's built-in functions for DOM manipulation
* Cons:
	+ May be slower due to the overhead of creating a new DOM element on every iteration

**Benchmark Definition 2: Without find**

This test case is similar to the previous one, but it uses a different approach. Instead of using `find()` to access the child elements, it directly accesses them by their IDs.

The preparation code is identical to the first test case, but the actual test loop has been modified:

* It creates an element 100 times and prepends each clone to the parent element.
* However, before prepending each clone, it executes three jQuery calls on specific elements (`$(`#${data[3] + i}`)`, `$(`#${data[6] + i}`)`) using their IDs.

**Pros and Cons:**

* Pros:
	+ May be faster due to reduced DOM overhead
	+ Uses direct element access, which can be more efficient
* Cons:
	+ More complex and harder to understand
	+ Requires precise control over the DOM structure

**Library Used: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation and provides a consistent interface for interacting with HTML documents. In this test case, it's used extensively to create and manipulate the DOM elements.

**Other Considerations**

When running these benchmark tests, other factors that might affect performance include:

* Browser-specific quirks or optimizations
* JavaScript engine and version differences
* System resources (CPU, memory, etc.)
* Network latency or caching effects

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. **DOM manipulation using vanilla JavaScript**: You can use native DOM methods like `document.createElement()`, `appendChild()`, and `getElementsByID()` to create and manipulate elements.
2. ** Templating engines**: Consider using a templating engine like Handlebars or Mustache to generate the HTML content, which might lead to more efficient rendering.
3. **Rendering libraries**: Libraries like React or Angular can provide optimized rendering mechanisms for complex DOM structures.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require significant changes to your codebase and might not offer performance advantages over jQuery-specific approaches.

Related benchmarks:

JQuery: test prepare div block with content and attribute (10 elements) (version: 0)

Test two approach for preparing div block with content (but for 100 elements)

Comparing performance of: With attr and html vs Without find

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

With attr and html

Without find

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):