Benchmark: Parse vs InnerHTML vs jQuery

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.2.1/core.js"></script>
<div id="demo"></div

Script Preparation code:

  var html = ""
  
  for(var i = 0; i++; i < 1000){
     html += `<ol>
    <li>a</li>
    <li>b</li>
  </ol>
  <ol>
    <li>c</li>
    <li>d</li>
  </ol>`;
  }
  
  var demo = document.querySelector("#demo")
  var range = document.createRange();
  var parse = range.createContextualFragment.bind(range);

Tests:

parse()
demo.appendChild(parse(html)); document.querySelector("#demo").innerHTML = ""
innerHTML
demo.innerHTML = html; document.querySelector("#demo").innerHTML = ""
jQuery
demo.append($(html)[0]); document.querySelector("#demo").innerHTML = ""

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
parse()
innerHTML
jQuery

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of different methods for parsing and rendering HTML content in JavaScript is crucial for optimizing web applications' performance.

The provided benchmark definition JSON compares three approaches:

1.  **`parse()`**: This method uses the `createContextualFragment()` function from the `DOMRange` API to parse the HTML string.
2.  **`innerHTML`**: This method directly sets the innerHTML property of an element using the jQuery library, which parses and renders the HTML content.
3.  **`jQuery`**: This method uses the jQuery library's `append()` method to append the parsed HTML content to an element.

**Options Compared:**

*   **DOM parsing vs. jQuery parsing**: The benchmark compares two approaches for parsing HTML content - one using the DOM's `createContextualFragment()` function and another relying on the jQuery library.
*   **DOM rendering vs. jQuery rendering**: Both methods use the same approach to render the parsed HTML content, but the benchmark focuses on how these components are used.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

*   **`parse()` (DOM parsing)**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Lightweight: This method doesn't require any external libraries.
        *   Efficient: It uses native DOM methods for parsing and rendering.
    *   Cons:
        *   Browser support might be limited due to the reliance on specific DOM API functions.
*   **`innerHTML` (jQuery parsing)**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Wide browser support: jQuery has a large user base, ensuring compatibility across most browsers.
        *   Simplified code: The `innerHTML` method simplifies the process of setting and getting HTML content.
    *   Cons:
        *   Additional overhead: Relying on an external library (jQuery) adds unnecessary weight to your application.
*   **`jQuery`**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Familiarity: Many developers are already familiar with jQuery, making it easier to work with.
        *   Broad browser support: Like `innerHTML`, jQuery has a large user base ensuring compatibility across most browsers.
    *   Cons:
        *   Overhead: The jQuery library is an additional dependency that can slow down your application.

**Library and Purpose:**

*   **jQuery**: A popular JavaScript library for simplifying DOM interactions. It provides methods like `append()`, `innerHTML`, and many others to interact with HTML content.

The benchmark's results will help you understand the relative performance of these three approaches in parsing and rendering HTML content, allowing you to make informed decisions about your application's architecture and optimization strategies.

**Alternatives:**

*   **Other DOM parsing methods**: Depending on your specific requirements, you might consider alternative DOM parsing libraries or native API functions (e.g., `DocumentFragment`, `DOMParser`) for more efficient parsing.
*   **Rendering engines**: Some web applications use rendering engines like WebKit or Blink to render HTML content. However, this would likely require a deeper investigation of those ecosystems.

In general, the choice between these approaches will depend on your project's specific needs and constraints.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/60.0.3112.90 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 60 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
parse()	162107.9 Ops/sec
innerHTML	185996.6 Ops/sec
jQuery	98373.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Parse vs InnerHTML vs jQuery (version: 0)

Parse vs InnerHTML vs jQuery

Comparing performance of: parse() vs innerHTML vs jQuery

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

parse()

innerHTML

jQuery

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):