Benchmark: jQuery(htmlstring) vs jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)

Script Preparation code:

htmlstring = '<div class="pie"><a href="example.com"></div><br><p>blah</p><div class="something"><p>content</p></div>'

Tests:

jQuery(htmlstring)
$(htmlstring);
jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)
$.parseHTML(htmlstring);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery(htmlstring)
jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/66.0.3359.117 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 66 on Mac OS X 10.13.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery(htmlstring)	20538.8 Ops/sec
jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)	3286.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark definition and results.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark tests two different approaches to parsing HTML strings using jQuery:

1. **jQuery(htmlstring)**: This test case uses the standard `$()` function in jQuery to parse an HTML string.
2. **$.parseHTML(htmlstring)**: This test case uses a specialized function called `$.parseHTML()` specifically designed for parsing HTML strings.

**Description of Options**

The two options being compared are:

* Using the standard `$()` function in jQuery to parse an HTML string
* Using the specialized `$.parseHTML()` function to parse an HTML string

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **jQuery(htmlstring)**:
	+ Pros: widely supported, easily accessible using the standard `$()` function.
	+ Cons: may not be optimized for parsing large or complex HTML strings.
* **$.parseHTML(htmlstring)**:
	+ Pros: specifically designed for parsing HTML strings, potentially more efficient and robust.
	+ Cons: requires a specific jQuery version (jQuery 1.8 and later), may have compatibility issues with older browsers.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two options, consider the following:

* If you're working on an existing project that uses an older jQuery version or has legacy code, using the standard `$()` function might be a safer choice.
* If your project requires efficient and robust HTML string parsing, using `$.parseHTML()` might be a better option.

**Library and Purpose**

In this test case, the library used is **jQuery**, a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation. The purpose of jQuery in this context is to provide a convenient way to parse HTML strings using either the standard `$()` function or the specialized `$.parseHTML()` function.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark definition.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for parsing HTML strings include:

* Using the native `DOMParser` API (supported by most modern browsers)
* Using a dedicated HTML parser library like **htmlparser** or **cheerio**
* Using a templating engine like **Handlebars** or **Mustache** to render HTML templates

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have their own trade-offs and considerations, depending on your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery(htmlstring) vs jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jQuery(htmlstring) vs jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery(htmlstring)

jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 2 months ago):