Benchmark: mustache rendering performance - parsed vs unparsed

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://builds.handlebarsjs.com.s3.amazonaws.com/handlebars-v4.0.5.js"></script>
<script src="https://twitter.github.io/hogan.js/builds/3.0.1/hogan-3.0.1.js"></script>
<script src="https://rawgit.com/janl/mustache.js/v2.2.1/mustache.js"></script>
<script src="https://rawgit.com/satchmorun/mote/master/mote.js"></script>

AخA
 
<script src="https://builds.handlebarsjs.com.s3.amazonaws.com/handlebars-v4.0.5.js"></script>
<script src="https://twitter.github.io/hogan.js/builds/3.0.1/hogan-3.0.1.js"></script>
<script src="https://rawgit.com/janl/mustache.js/v2.2.1/mustache.js"></script>
<script src="https://rawgit.com/satchmorun/mote/master/mote.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var templateParsed = "<strong>This is a slightly more complicated {{thing}}.</strong>.\n{{! Just ignore this business. }}\nCheck this out:\n{{#hasThings}}\n<ul>\n{{#things}}\n<li class={{className}}>{{word}}</li>\n{{/things}}</ul>.\n{{/hasThings}}\n{{^hasThings}}\n\n<small>Nothing to check out...</small>\n{{/hasThings}}";
var templateUnparsed = "<strong>This is a slightly more complicated {{thing}}.</strong>.\n{{! Just ignore this business. }}\nCheck this out:\n{{#hasThings}}\n<ul>\n{{#things}}\n<li class={{className}}>{{word}}</li>\n{{/things}}</ul>.\n{{/hasThings}}\n{{^hasThings}}\n\n<small>Nothing to check out...</small>\n{{/hasThings}}";

var context = {
  thing: function() {
    return "blah";
  },
  things: [
    {"className": "one", word: "@fat"},
    {"className": "two", word: "@dhg"},
    {"className": "three", word:"@sayrer"}
  ],
  hasThings: true
};

Mustache.parse(templateParsed);

​x
 
var templateParsed = "<strong>This is a slightly more complicated {{thing}}.</strong>.\n{{! Just ignore this business. }}\nCheck this out:\n{{#hasThings}}\n<ul>\n{{#things}}\n<li class={{className}}>{{word}}</li>\n{{/things}}</ul>.\n{{/hasThings}}\n{{^hasThings}}\n\n<small>Nothing to check out...</small>\n{{/hasThings}}";var templateUnparsed = "<strong>This is a slightly more complicated {{thing}}.</strong>.\n{{! Just ignore this business. }}\nCheck this out:\n{{#hasThings}}\n<ul>\n{{#things}}\n<li class={{className}}>{{word}}</li>\n{{/things}}</ul>.\n{{/hasThings}}\n{{^hasThings}}\n\n<small>Nothing to check out...</small>\n{{/hasThings}}";​var context = {  thing: function() {    return "blah";  },  things: [    {"className": "one", word: "@fat"},    {"className": "two", word: "@dhg"},    {"className": "three", word:"@sayrer"}  ],  hasThings: true};​Mustache.parse(templateParsed);​

Tests:

Mustache Unparsed
Mustache.render(templateUnparsed, context);
Mustache.render(templateUnparsed, context);
Mustache Parsed
Mustache.render(templateParsed, context);
Mustache.render(templateParsed, context);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
Mustache Unparsed
Mustache Parsed

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/89.0.4389.114 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 89 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Mustache Unparsed	272939.7 Ops/sec
Mustache Parsed	279923.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):

Let's dive into the explanation.

Benchmark Definition

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test for comparing the performance of two different Mustache rendering approaches: templateParsed and templateUnparsed. The goal is to measure the time it takes to render these two templates using the Mustache library.

Template Parsed vs Unparsed

The difference between the two templates lies in how the template syntax is handled.

templateParsed: This template has already been parsed by the Mustache library, which means that the syntax has been compiled into an intermediate representation (IR). This approach should result in faster rendering times since the parsing step has already been done.
templateUnparsed: This template still contains unparsed syntax. The Mustache library will need to parse the template on-the-fly before rendering it. This approach might be slower due to the additional overhead of parsing.

Options Compared

The benchmark test compares two options:

Parsing vs No Parsing: As explained earlier, the main difference between these two approaches is how the template syntax is handled.
Compiled Template vs Uncompiled Template: The templates are either parsed or unparsed. Parsed templates have already been compiled into an intermediate representation (IR), while uncompiled templates still contain raw Mustache syntax.

Pros and Cons

Pros of using templateParsed:

Faster rendering times since the parsing step has already been done.
Potential for better performance due to reduced parsing overhead.

Cons of using templateParsed:

May require more memory to store the parsed template.
Limited flexibility in terms of modifying the template syntax without recompiling it.

Pros of using templateUnparsed:

More flexible and easier to modify the template syntax without recompiling it.
Reduced memory requirements since only the raw template is stored.

Cons of using templateUnparsed:

Slower rendering times due to additional parsing overhead.
Potential for slower performance compared to the parsed approach.

Libraries Used

The benchmark test includes the following libraries:

Handlebars.js: A popular templating library that provides a robust set of features for building dynamic web applications.
Hogan.js: A small, fast, and feature-rich templating library that is designed to be more efficient than other options.
Mustache.js: A lightweight, flexible templating library that provides a simple way to render templates with dynamic data.

Other Considerations

When building benchmarks like this, it's essential to consider factors such as:

Memory overhead: How much memory is required to store the parsed or uncompiled template?
Parsing efficiency: How quickly can the Mustache library parse the template syntax?
Rendering performance: How fast can the rendered template be executed?

Alternatives

If you're interested in exploring alternative templating libraries, consider the following options:

Underscore.js Templates: A simple and lightweight templating library that provides a basic set of features for building dynamic web applications.
Pug.js: A fast and feature-rich templating library that is designed to be more efficient than other options.
EJS (Embedded JavaScript): A templating engine that allows you to embed JavaScript code within your templates.

Each of these alternatives has its strengths and weaknesses, so it's essential to evaluate them based on your specific needs and requirements.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test for comparing the performance of two different Mustache rendering approaches: `templateParsed` and `templateUnparsed`. The goal is to measure the time it takes to render these two templates using the Mustache library.

**Template Parsed vs Unparsed**

The difference between the two templates lies in how the template syntax is handled.

*   `templateParsed`: This template has already been parsed by the Mustache library, which means that the syntax has been compiled into an intermediate representation (IR). This approach should result in faster rendering times since the parsing step has already been done.
*   `templateUnparsed`: This template still contains unparsed syntax. The Mustache library will need to parse the template on-the-fly before rendering it. This approach might be slower due to the additional overhead of parsing.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark test compares two options:

1.  **Parsing vs No Parsing**: As explained earlier, the main difference between these two approaches is how the template syntax is handled.
2.  **Compiled Template vs Uncompiled Template**: The templates are either parsed or unparsed. Parsed templates have already been compiled into an intermediate representation (IR), while uncompiled templates still contain raw Mustache syntax.

**Pros and Cons**

Pros of using `templateParsed`:

*   Faster rendering times since the parsing step has already been done.
*   Potential for better performance due to reduced parsing overhead.

Cons of using `templateParsed`:

*   May require more memory to store the parsed template.
*   Limited flexibility in terms of modifying the template syntax without recompiling it.

Pros of using `templateUnparsed`:

*   More flexible and easier to modify the template syntax without recompiling it.
*   Reduced memory requirements since only the raw template is stored.

Cons of using `templateUnparsed`:

*   Slower rendering times due to additional parsing overhead.
*   Potential for slower performance compared to the parsed approach.

**Libraries Used**

The benchmark test includes the following libraries:

1.  **Handlebars.js**: A popular templating library that provides a robust set of features for building dynamic web applications.
2.  **Hogan.js**: A small, fast, and feature-rich templating library that is designed to be more efficient than other options.
3.  **Mustache.js**: A lightweight, flexible templating library that provides a simple way to render templates with dynamic data.

**Other Considerations**

When building benchmarks like this, it's essential to consider factors such as:

*   **Memory overhead**: How much memory is required to store the parsed or uncompiled template?
*   **Parsing efficiency**: How quickly can the Mustache library parse the template syntax?
*   **Rendering performance**: How fast can the rendered template be executed?

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative templating libraries, consider the following options:

1.  **Underscore.js Templates**: A simple and lightweight templating library that provides a basic set of features for building dynamic web applications.
2.  **Pug.js**: A fast and feature-rich templating library that is designed to be more efficient than other options.
3.  **EJS (Embedded JavaScript)**: A templating engine that allows you to embed JavaScript code within your templates.

Each of these alternatives has its strengths and weaknesses, so it's essential to evaluate them based on your specific needs and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

mustache rendering performance - parsed vs unparsed (version: 0)

nya nya nya

Comparing performance of: Mustache Unparsed vs Mustache Parsed

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Mustache Unparsed

Mustache Parsed

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):