Benchmark: JQuery: compare selector for finding by name attribute

HTML Preparation code:

<form id="data">
  <input name="field1"/>
  <input name="field2"/>
  <input name="field3"/>
  <input name="field4"/>
  <input name="field5"/>
  <input name="field6"/>
  <input name="field7"/>
  <input name="field8"/>
  <input name="field9"/>
  <input name="field10"/>
</form>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.4.1/jquery.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var $element = $("#data");

Tests:

find by tag and name attribute
$element.find("input[name='field5']");
find by wildcard and name attribute
$element.find("*[name='field5']");
find by name attribute
$element.find("[name='field5']");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
find by tag and name attribute
find by wildcard and name attribute
find by name attribute

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.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests the performance of different approaches for finding an element in a HTML document using jQuery. The approaches are:

1. Finding an element by its `name` attribute, which uses the `[name='fieldX']` syntax.
2. Finding all elements with a `name` attribute and then selecting one, which uses the `*[name='fieldX']` syntax (using a wildcard).
3. Finding all elements of a specific tag (`input`) and then filtering by `name` attribute.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches:

1. **Find by name attribute**: Using `[name='fieldX']`
	* Pros: Fast, efficient way to filter elements based on their attributes.
	* Cons: May not work as expected if the element is nested inside another element with a similar `name` attribute.
2. **Find by wildcard and name attribute**: Using `*[name='fieldX']`
	* Pros: Works even if the element is nested, but may be slower due to the additional filtering step.
	* Cons: May return more elements than expected, leading to unnecessary computations.
3. **Find by tag and then filter by name attribute**: Using `input[name='fieldX']`
	* Pros: Guaranteed to return only elements of the specified tag with the matching `name` attribute.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the two-step approach.

**Other considerations**

The benchmark also considers other factors, such as:

* The browser and device being used (Chrome 84 on Windows Desktop).
* The number of executions per second (higher values indicate faster performance).

**Library and its purpose**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used as a library to provide the `find` method for selecting elements in the HTML document.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on the performance of different approachess to achieve a specific goal (finding an element by its `name` attribute).

**Alternatives**

Other approaches for finding an element in a HTML document using jQuery might include:

* Using `document.getElementById('id')` instead of `find`
* Using `querySelectorAll` or `querySelector` methods from the DOM API
* Implementing custom filtering logic using JavaScript loops and conditional statements

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, depending on the specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

JQuery: compare selector for finding by name attribute (version: 0)

find the best approach for finding element by name

Comparing performance of: find by tag and name attribute vs find by wildcard and name attribute vs find by name attribute

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

find by tag and name attribute

find by wildcard and name attribute

find by name attribute

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):