Benchmark: test DomParser - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Dom Parser
const html = "<html><body><div>test</div></body></html>" const parser = new DOMParser(); const virtualDom = parser.parseFromString(html, 'text/html'); const body = virtualDom.querySelector('body');
Regex
const html = "<html><body><div>test</div></body></html>" const pattern = /<body[^>]*>((.|[\n\r])*)<\/body>/im; const matches = pattern.exec(html); const body = matches[1]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Dom Parser
Regex

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 dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in these JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Context**

MeasureThat.net allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, comparing different approaches to solve a specific problem. In this case, we have two benchmark definitions that test two distinct methods: parsing an HTML string using the `DOMParser` API and using regular expressions (Regex).

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Dom Parser**: This test uses the `DOMParser` API to parse an HTML string and extract the `<body>` element.
2. **Regex**: This test uses a Regex pattern to search for the `<body>` element in the same HTML string.

**Options Compared**

We're comparing two approaches:

* **Dom Parser**: Using the `DOMParser` API to parse the HTML string and extract the `<body>` element.
* **Regex**: Using regular expressions (Regex) to search for the `<body>` element in the HTML string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Dom Parser**

Pros:

* More straightforward and efficient for parsing complex HTML structures
* Less prone to errors due to its built-in DOM manipulation capabilities

Cons:

* Can be slower due to the overhead of creating a new DOM document
* May not work well with malformed or invalid HTML input

**Regex**

Pros:

* Faster execution time, as it doesn't require parsing an entire DOM tree
* More flexible for searching patterns in text data

Cons:

* Can be brittle and error-prone, especially when dealing with complex or edge-case patterns
* May not work correctly with malformed or invalid HTML input

**Library and Purpose**

In the Dom Parser test case, we're using the `DOMParser` API, which is a built-in JavaScript library. Its purpose is to parse an HTML string and create a new DOM document from it.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in these benchmark definitions. The tests focus solely on comparing two approaches for parsing HTML strings using different methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test alternative methods, some possibilities could include:

* Using the ` cheerio` library, which is a popular JavaScript library for parsing and manipulating HTML documents
* Employing a more advanced regex pattern or technique, such as capturing groups or lazy matching
* Exploring other parsing libraries like `jsdom` or `htmlparser`
* Implementing a custom parser using a different algorithm or data structure

Keep in mind that each alternative approach would require significant changes to the benchmark definition and test code.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:132.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/132.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 132 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Dom Parser	14457.1 Ops/sec
Regex	10836278.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test DomParser (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Dom Parser vs Regex

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Dom Parser

Regex

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):