Benchmark: DOMParser vs createElement

Tests:

DOMParser()
let parser = new DOMParser(); let html = `<div id=":27" class="a3s aiL ">\[\begin{CD}<br>    A @>a>> B \\<br> @VbVV @AAcA \\<br>    C @= D<br> \end{CD}\]<div class="yj6qo"></div><div class="adL"><br> </div></div>` let doc = parser.parseFromString(html, 'text/html'); result = doc.documentElement.textContent;
createElement
let div = document.createElement('div'); let html = `<div id=":27" class="a3s aiL ">\[\begin{CD}<br>    A @>a>> B \\<br> @VbVV @AAcA \\<br>    C @= D<br> \end{CD}\]<div class="yj6qo"></div><div class="adL"><br> </div></div>` div.innerHTML = html; result = div.textContent

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
DOMParser()
createElement

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 is being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches for converting raw HTML into textContent:

1. Using `DOMParser`.
2. Creating a new element using `document.createElement`, setting its innerHTML, and then extracting the textContent.

**Options Compared:**

* `DOMParser` vs `createElement`
* Performance differences between these two approaches

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

* **DOMParser:**
	+ Pros:
		- More straightforward and concise way to parse HTML.
		- Less CPU-intensive compared to creating an element and setting its innerHTML.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be suitable for all use cases (e.g., parsing complex, malformed HTML).
		- Can lead to performance issues if the input HTML is large or complex.
* **createElement:**
	+ Pros:
		- More flexible and powerful than `DOMParser`.
		- Can handle more complex HTML structures.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires more code and is generally slower than using `DOMParser`.

**Library/Functionality Used:**

None explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition, but `document` is used to access various DOM functions.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
No specific JavaScript features or syntax are being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different approaches for parsing HTML.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative methods for converting raw HTML into textContent, consider the following:

1. **innerHTML**: Similar to `createElement`, but sets the innerHTML of an existing element.
2. **textContent**: Some DOM elements have a `textContent` property that can be set directly from an HTML string.
3. **parseFromString**: Other browsers might use this method for parsing HTML strings, although it's less commonly used than `DOMParser`.
4. **XSLT or XML parsers**: For more complex HTML structures, you might consider using XSLT or XML parsers.

Keep in mind that the choice of method depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:131.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/131.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
DOMParser()	21308.0 Ops/sec
createElement	17101.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

DOMParser vs createElement (version: 0)

which is faster for converting raw html into textContent

Comparing performance of: DOMParser() vs createElement

Created: one month ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

DOMParser()

createElement

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):