For those without a Google login, you can see the results here; http://www.intoajax.com/pvjcompare.jpg
I also posted this in the Ajaxian entry and Claudio's blog to give people an alternative view. Rey... Rey Bango wrote: > These numbers have already been invalidated here: > > http://0nz.spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?id=o04790098234894520511.5178455417629729589.12842749026303919978.6392792159332293656 > > One of people that commented on Claudio's posting ran the tests himself > and got very different results. > > Dean Edwards also jumped in to give his viewpoints on this and he said, > > "Let me guess. You performed these tests on a page with very few > elements. Prototype is very good at executing lots of little queries. It > is very bad at executing lots of large queries. Please post your source > code." > > and > > "Try buidling a page with ten thousand nodes then run the tests again…" > > So it appears that the benchmarks are very representative of anything > except perhaps spreading a little FUD. > > Rey... > > Nilesh Patel wrote: > >>hey all, anyone else seen this too? >> >> >>http://ajaxian.com/archives/benchmark-prototype-and-jquery >> >>Claudio Cicali thinks benchmarks are boring and useless, so he decided >>to conduct a series of micro-benchmarks of CSS selector tests with both >>Prototype and jQuery. He decided to do this after he saw others observe: >> >> * Prototype (1.5+) has CSS selector syntax now >> * "jQuery is horribly SLOW" >> >> >> >>http://ajaxian.com/archives/benchmark-prototype-and-jquery > > > _______________________________________________ > jQuery mailing list > [email protected] > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list [email protected] http://jquery.com/discuss/
