Benchmark: testing dom sp33d

Tests:

createContextualFragment
let frag = document.createRange().createContextualFragment('<div>One</div><div>Two</div>');
DOMParser
let doc = new DOMParser().parseFromString('<div>One</div><div>Two</div>', 'text/html');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
createContextualFragment
DOMParser

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark being measured and the different approaches being compared.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of two specific JavaScript APIs: `createContextualFragment` and `DOMParser`. The benchmark is focused on comparing the execution speed of these two APIs, which are used for parsing and manipulating HTML documents in a web browser.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Document.createRange().createContextualFragment('<div>One</div><div>Two</div>');**
This option uses the `createContextualFragment` method to create a new DOM fragment from a string of HTML code.
2. **new DOMParser().parseFromString('<div>One</div><div>Two</div>', 'text/html');**
This option uses the `DOMParser` API to parse an HTML string into a DOM document.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **createContextualFragment**
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient for parsing small, self-contained fragments.
		+ Can be more flexible when working with complex fragment structures.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be suitable for large or complex documents.
		+ Can be slower than `DOMParser` for simple HTML parsing.
2. **DOMParser**
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient for parsing large or complex documents.
		+ Supports a wider range of input formats, including HTML, XML, and text strings.
	* Cons:
		+ May have higher overhead due to the parsing process.
		+ Can be slower for simple HTML parsing.

**Library Use**

In this benchmark, neither `createContextualFragment` nor `DOMParser` are using a specific library. However, both APIs are part of the web platform standards and are implemented by web browsers.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

Neither of the options being compared uses any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to parsing HTML documents in a web browser, some other options include:

1. **HTMLParser**: A lightweight, custom parser that can be used to parse HTML strings.
2. **JSoup**: A popular Java library that provides an easy-to-use API for parsing and manipulating HTML documents. (Note: This is not directly applicable to JavaScript, but it's worth mentioning as an alternative approach.)
3. **DOM-based libraries**: Other DOM-based libraries, such as `pug` or `handlebars`, can also be used to parse and manipulate HTML templates.

In conclusion, the benchmark measures the performance of two widely used APIs for parsing and manipulating HTML documents in web browsers: `createContextualFragment` and `DOMParser`. The choice between these options depends on the specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/95.0.4638.69 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 95 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
createContextualFragment	168653.2 Ops/sec
DOMParser	10812.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testing dom sp33d (version: 0)

x

Comparing performance of: createContextualFragment vs DOMParser

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

createContextualFragment

DOMParser

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):