OP is explaining their methodology poorly. The 62ms number is the time it takes to run the call 100,000 times, in a loop, with a string interpolation. And measurement is done by taking the delta of two performance.now() calls, which are known to be precise to only about 1ms for spectre mitigation[0].
FWIW, JS old timers have known querySelector is slower than getElementById since querySelector became a thing.
I know, that's why it's misleading and it should not be considered. A quick reader will think that "using getElementById will save me 32ms", but it'd be off by several orders of magnitude.
That sounds like a pit of success, though. The gain just isn't that significant. IMHO, misleading would be if querySelector was faster under normal circumstances but shown to be slower through bad benchmarking
FWIW, JS old timers have known querySelector is slower than getElementById since querySelector became a thing.
[0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Performance...