Benchmark: Parse vs InnerHTML vs jQuery

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.2.1/core.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)); demo.innerHTML = ""
innerHTML
demo.innerHTML = html; demo.innerHTML = ""
jQuery
demo.append($(html)[0]); demo.innerHTML = ""

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
parse()
innerHTML
jQuery

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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing three approaches to parse HTML:

1. `parse()`: A custom function that uses the `createContextualFragment` method to parse the HTML.
2. `innerHTML`: The built-in HTML property of an element to set its inner HTML content.
3. `jQuery`: The jQuery library's `append` method to append a fragment to an element.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code generates 1000 instances of the same HTML string, which is then used in each benchmark case.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a link to the jQuery library and creates a `<div>` element with an ID of "demo".

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. `parse()`: This test case measures the execution time of creating a `ContextualFragment` from the generated HTML using the `createContextualFragment.bind(range)` method.
2. `innerHTML`: This test case measures the execution time of setting the inner HTML content of the `<div>` element to the generated HTML string, and then clearing it.
3. `jQuery`: This test case measures the execution time of appending a fragment to the `<div>` element using jQuery's `append` method.

**Pros and Cons**

* **parse()**: Pros:
	+ Can be more efficient for large amounts of data since it doesn't require parsing the entire HTML string at once.
	+ Allows for custom optimization and caching.
* Cons:
	+ Requires creating a `ContextualFragment`, which can add overhead.
* `innerHTML`: Pros:
	+ Simple and easy to implement.
	+ Fast, as it only requires setting the inner HTML content of an element.
* Cons:
	+ Can be slow for very large amounts of data, as the browser needs to parse and render the entire HTML string.
	+ May not support all features or attributes in the original HTML string.
* `jQuery`: Pros:
	+ Provides a robust and feature-rich library for DOM manipulation.
	+ Fast and efficient for most use cases.
* Cons:
	+ Adds an external dependency (the jQuery library).
	+ Can be slower than native JavaScript for very large amounts of data.

**Library: jQuery**

The jQuery library is a popular, open-source JavaScript library that provides a simplified way to interact with the DOM. In this benchmark, it's used as a comparison point for `innerHTML`. The `append` method is used to append a fragment to an element, which is then cleared.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**

There are no specific special features or syntaxes mentioned in the provided code. However, note that the use of `createContextualFragment` is a relatively advanced feature in JavaScript, and its implementation may require additional setup or configuration depending on the browser and environment.

**Other Alternatives:**

For comparing the execution times of different HTML parsing approaches, other alternatives could include:

* **DOMParser**: A built-in JavaScript API for parsing HTML strings.
* **JS DOM libraries like jsdom or cheerio**: These libraries provide a JavaScript interface to parse and manipulate HTML documents.
* **Browser-specific APIs or extensions**: Some browsers provide optimized APIs or extensions for specific use cases, such as parsing large amounts of data.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its own trade-offs and limitations, and the choice of which one to use depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/60.0.3112.101 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 60 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
parse()	176716.8 Ops/sec
innerHTML	204351.2 Ops/sec
jQuery	112176.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Parse vs InnerHTML vs jQuery (version: 0)

Parse vs InnerHTML vs jQuery

Comparing performance of: parse() vs innerHTML vs jQuery

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

parse()

innerHTML

jQuery

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):