Benchmark: Insert html - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="foo"></div>

Script Preparation code:

var string = '<div class="bar"></div>';

Tests:

parseFromString
var element = document.getElementById("foo"); var i = 10000; while (i--) { new window.DOMParser().parseFromString(string, "text/html"); }
adjacebt
var element = document.getElementById("foo"); var i = 10000; while (i--) { element.insertAdjacentHTML("afterbegin", string); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
parseFromString
adjacebt

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and analyze the provided benchmark definition.

**What is being tested?**

The test measures the performance difference between two approaches:

1. **`parseFromString`**: This method parses an HTML string as if it were an external resource, allowing you to access its contents programmatically.
2. **`insertAdjacentHTML`**: This method inserts a fragment of HTML into the DOM at a specified position.

**Options being compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches with different characteristics:

* The `parseFromString` approach uses a loop to repeat a parsing operation 10,000 times.
* The `insertAdjacentHTML` approach also uses a loop, but inserts the HTML string into an element (`#foo`) using `insertAdjacentHTML("afterbegin", string)`.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

**`parseFromString`:**

Pros:

* More explicit control over parsing the HTML content
* Can be useful for cases where you need to parse multiple resources or manipulate the parsed data

Cons:

* Requires additional memory allocation and processing power for parsing each resource
* May have slower performance due to the overhead of parsing and DOM manipulation

**`insertAdjacentHTML`:**

Pros:

* Faster execution speed, as it directly inserts HTML content into the DOM without parsing
* Can be useful for cases where you need to update the DOM frequently or with high precision

Cons:

* Requires additional memory allocation and processing power for inserting each fragment of HTML
* May have slower performance due to the overhead of DOM manipulation

**Library:**

The `DOMParser` library is used in both test cases. This library provides a way to parse HTML strings, XML documents, or other data sources into a Document Object Model (DOM) representation.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

No special features or syntax are used in this benchmark that would require additional explanation.

**Other considerations:**

When designing microbenchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider the following:

* **Isolation**: Ensure that each test case is isolated from other operations to prevent interference and ensure accurate results.
* **Consistency**: Use consistent naming conventions, variable names, and code organization throughout the benchmark definition and test cases.
* **Scalability**: Consider scaling the tests to cover a broader range of inputs, edge cases, or more complex scenarios.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives for measuring performance differences in JavaScript benchmarks include:

* **`innerHTML` vs. `textContent`**: Compare the performance of using `innerHTML` and `textContent` methods for parsing HTML content.
* **Template literals vs. concatenation**: Compare the performance of using template literals versus concatenating strings to build dynamic content.
* **Async operations**: Introduce asynchronous operations, such as promises or callbacks, to simulate real-world scenarios where performance optimization is crucial.

Keep in mind that these alternatives should be designed with similar considerations in mind to ensure accurate and reliable results.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
parseFromString	5.5 Ops/sec
adjacebt	22.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Insert html (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: parseFromString vs adjacebt

Created: 4 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

parseFromString

adjacebt

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):