Benchmark: DOM Parser vs insertAdjacentHTML simple

Script Preparation code:

var string = `
<div class="htmlTooltip">
    
    </div>  `;

Tests:

DOMParser
const html = new window.DOMParser().parseFromString(string, "text/html");
insertAdjacentHTML
const div = document.createElement("div"); const html = div.insertAdjacentHTML("afterbegin", string);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
DOMParser
insertAdjacentHTML

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches: parsing HTML using the `window.DOMParser` API, and inserting HTML content using the `insertAdjacentHTML()` method on an existing DOM element.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **DOMParser**: This option uses the `window.DOMParser` API to parse the input string as HTML.
2. **insertAdjacentHTML**: This option creates a new DOM element and inserts the input string into it using the `insertAdjacentHTML()` method.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**DOMParser:**

Pros:

* More explicit and controlled way of parsing HTML
* Can be used for more complex HTML structures

Cons:

* May have overhead due to the parsing process
* Requires additional memory allocation for the parsed DOM tree

**insertAdjacentHTML:**

Pros:

* Faster, as it doesn't involve parsing or creating a new DOM tree
* More lightweight, with less memory allocation required

Cons:

* Less explicit and controlled way of inserting HTML content
* May not work well with complex HTML structures

**Library Used**

The `window.DOMParser` API is part of the W3C DOM (Document Object Model) specification. It provides a way to parse HTML strings into DOM trees.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark, but note that other benchmarks might test features like async/await or modern JavaScript syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches could be:

1. **String manipulation**: Instead of using `DOMParser` or `insertAdjacentHTML`, the benchmark could compare string manipulation techniques to extract HTML content from a string.
2. **Template engines**: Another approach would be to use a template engine like Handlebars or Mustache to generate and parse HTML templates.
3. **Other parsing methods**: Other parsing methods, such as using regular expressions or a custom parsing function, could also be tested.

Overall, this benchmark provides a good comparison between two approaches to inserting HTML content into a DOM tree, highlighting the trade-offs between explicit parsing and lightweight insertion methods.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
DOMParser	124822.9 Ops/sec
insertAdjacentHTML	316027.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

DOM Parser vs insertAdjacentHTML simple (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: DOMParser vs insertAdjacentHTML

Created: 4 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

DOMParser

insertAdjacentHTML

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):