Benchmark: Parse vs InnerHTML

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.0.min.js"></script>
<div id="demo"></div

Script Preparation code:

  var html = ""
  
  for(var i = 0; i++; i < 1000){
     html += `<ol>
    <li>a</li>
    <li>b</li>
  </ol>
  <ol>
    <li>c</li>
    <li>d</li>
  </ol>`;
  }
  
  var demo = document.querySelector("#demo")
  var range = document.createRange();
  var parse = range.createContextualFragment.bind(range);

Tests:

parse()
demo.appendChild(parse(html)); document.querySelector("#demo").innerHTML = ""
innerHTML
demo.innerHTML = html; document.querySelector("#demo").innerHTML = ""

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
parse()
innerHTML

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the provided JSON benchmark data.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark tests two different approaches to parse and append HTML content to an element: `innerHTML` and `createContextualFragment`. The test creates 1000 `<ol>` elements with 2 `<li>` elements each, and then appends this HTML content to a container element using either the `innerHTML` property or the `createContextualFragment` method.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **`innerHTML`**: This approach uses the `innerHTML` property of the `demo` element to set its inner HTML. This property is used to set the text content and HTML structure of an element.
2. **`createContextualFragment`**: This approach uses the `createContextualFragment` method on a `Range` object created from the `demo` element, and then passes this fragment to the `appendChild` method.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`innerHTML`**:
	+ Pros: Simple and straightforward. Most people are familiar with using `innerHTML` to set HTML content.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to DOM mutations, which can lead to performance issues in some browsers.
* **`createContextualFragment`**:
	+ Pros: Faster, as it avoids the overhead of creating a new DOM element and setting its innerHTML. This approach is more suitable for large amounts of HTML content.
	+ Cons: Requires understanding of the `Range` object and `createContextualFragment` method, which might be less familiar to developers.

**Library/ Framework Used**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used in the HTML preparation code (`<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.0.min.js"></script>`). However, it's not explicitly used in the test cases themselves. Instead, the `createContextualFragment` method is called on a `Range` object created from the `demo` element.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

The benchmark uses the `createContextualFragment` method, which is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2019 (ES10). This method allows you to create a new DOM fragment that can be appended to an existing element without causing a full reflow of the layout.

**Other Considerations**

When comparing these two approaches, it's essential to consider the context and requirements of your specific use case. If you need to set HTML content quickly and don't mind using `innerHTML`, this approach might be sufficient. However, if you're working with large amounts of data or need to optimize performance, `createContextualFragment` might be a better choice.

As for alternatives, some other approaches to append HTML content include:

* Using the `DOMParser` API to parse the HTML string and create a new DOM element.
* Creating a temporary DOM element using `document.createElement`, setting its innerHTML, and then appending it to the target element.
* Using a library like React or Angular, which provide optimized ways to manage and update DOM content.

It's worth noting that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the two options being compared in this benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/66.0.3359.139 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 66 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
parse()	213367.6 Ops/sec
innerHTML	658914.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Parse vs InnerHTML (version: 0)

Parse vs InnerHTML

Comparing performance of: parse() vs innerHTML

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

parse()

innerHTML

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):