Benchmark: jQuery(htmlstring) vs jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)

Script Preparation code:

htmlstring = '<div class="pie"><a href="example.com"></div><br><p>blah</p><div class="something"><p>content</p></div>'

Tests:

jQuery(htmlstring)
$(htmlstring);
jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)
$.parseHTML(htmlstring);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery(htmlstring)
jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark compares two methods for parsing HTML strings in jQuery:

* **`$(htmlstring)`:** This method constructs a full jQuery object from the provided `htmlstring`. It essentially treats the string as if it were already part of the DOM, allowing you to immediately interact with elements and their properties.

* **`$.parseHTML(htmlstring)`:**  This method specifically parses the HTML string into a collection of DOM nodes without directly creating a jQuery object around them. This means you get plain DOM nodes that can be further manipulated using jQuery or vanilla JavaScript methods.

**Pros & Cons:**

* **`$(htmlstring)`:**
    * **Pro:**  Offers direct access to jQuery's rich API for manipulating the parsed elements immediately.
    * **Con:** Can be more resource-intensive as it builds a complete jQuery object hierarchy, potentially unnecessary if you only need specific parts of the HTML.

* **`$.parseHTML(htmlstring)`:**
    * **Pro:** More lightweight, as it avoids creating the full jQuery object structure. 
    * **Con:**  Requires additional steps to utilize jQuery methods for manipulation if needed. You'll be working with plain DOM nodes initially.

**Considerations:**

The choice depends on your specific needs:

* If you need immediate access to jQuery functionalities on the parsed HTML elements, `$(htmlstring)` is more convenient.
* If you just need raw DOM nodes and intend to manipulate them later using jQuery or native JavaScript methods, `$.parseHTML(htmlstring)` is more efficient.

**Alternatives:**

While this benchmark focuses on jQuery's methods, there are other options for parsing HTML strings in JavaScript:

* **`Document.createElement()` and `innerHTML`:**  These provide a manual approach to building the DOM from an HTML string. You have granular control but more code is required.
* **Third-party libraries:** Libraries like cheerio offer powerful DOM parsing capabilities, often with more flexibility than jQuery's built-in methods.

Remember that performance can vary depending on the complexity of the HTML string and your browser environment.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/66.0.3359.117 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 66 on Mac OS X 10.13.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery(htmlstring)	20538.8 Ops/sec
jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)	3286.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery(htmlstring) vs jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jQuery(htmlstring) vs jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery(htmlstring)

jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated one month ago):