Benchmark: innerHTMLParser vs domParser

Script Preparation code:

var htmlString   = Array(100001).join('<div>x</div>');

Tests:

innerHTMLParser
function innerHTMLParser(htmlString) { const tempNode = document.createElement('div') tempNode.innerHTML = htmlString return tempNode.childNodes }
domParser
function domParser(htmlString) { return (new DOMParser()) .parseFromString(htmlString, 'text/html') .body.childNodes }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
innerHTMLParser
domParser

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested on the provided JSON and explain the different approaches, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares two approaches to parse HTML strings: `innerHTMLParser` and `domParser`. The goal is to determine which approach is faster and more efficient.

**Options Compared**

1. **innerHTMLParser**: This method uses the `innerHTML` property of an HTML element to parse the string. It creates a temporary `<div>` element, sets its `innerHTML` property to the input string, and returns the child nodes of the temporary element.
2. **domParser**: This method uses the `DOMParser` API provided by WebKit browsers (Safari) or Gecko browsers (Firefox). It creates a new instance of `DOMParser`, parses the input HTML string using its `parseFromString` method, and returns the body node's child nodes.

**Pros and Cons**

* **innerHTMLParser**:
	+ Pros: Simple implementation, easy to understand.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the need to create a temporary element and parse its `innerHTML`, which can lead to performance issues with large input strings.
* **domParser**:
	+ Pros: More efficient for parsing HTML strings, as it uses the browser's built-in parser.
	+ Cons: Requires WebKit or Gecko browsers (Safari and Firefox), respectively, and may have compatibility issues with other browsers.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also considers the special JavaScript features used in each approach:

* **innerHTMLParser**: This method uses the `innerHTML` property, which is a standard feature in modern JavaScript engines. However, some older browsers might not support it.
* **domParser**: This method relies on the `DOMParser` API, which is a proprietary feature introduced by Apple (Safari) and Mozilla (Firefox). While widely supported, there's still a chance of compatibility issues with other browsers.

**Library**

The `DOMParser` library is used in the `domParser` approach. Its purpose is to parse HTML strings and return a DOM tree representation of the input string.

**Special JS Feature**

There's no special JavaScript feature mentioned between these two approaches, as they rely on standard features or proprietary APIs.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for parsing HTML strings include:

* **DOMParser alternatives**: There are other libraries and implementations available, such as `xml2js` (a JSON-based parser) and `parse5` (a full-featured HTML parser). However, these might have different performance characteristics and compatibility issues compared to the built-in `DOMParser`.
* **JavaScript engines with built-in parsing**: Some JavaScript engines, like V8 (used by Chrome), have built-in parsing capabilities that can be used for HTML string manipulation.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/104.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 104 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
innerHTMLParser	1143445120.0 Ops/sec
domParser	1141495552.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

innerHTMLParser vs domParser (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: innerHTMLParser vs domParser

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

innerHTMLParser

domParser

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):