Benchmark: jQuery(htmlstring) vs jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring) #2

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

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)
$(document.body).append($(htmlstring));
jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)
$(document.body).append($.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: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/77.0.3865.120 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 77 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery(htmlstring)	18282.9 Ops/sec
jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)	3286.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its results.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON defines two individual test cases, both using jQuery to manipulate HTML strings. The tests aim to compare the performance of jQuery's `append` method with its `parseHTML` method when dealing with a specific HTML string.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two options are compared:

1. **jQuery's append method**: This method appends new content to an element without parsing the existing HTML.
2. **jQuery's parseHTML method**: This method parses a string into a DOM document and returns it as a jQuery object.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Append Method**:
	+ Pros: Fast, efficient, and easy to use. It doesn't require parsing the entire HTML string before appending content.
	+ Cons: May not be suitable for large or complex HTML strings, as it relies on caching and can lead to slower performance with frequent appends.
* **ParseHTML Method**:
	+ Pros: Can handle complex or large HTML strings more efficiently than the append method. It also provides a way to parse HTML without modifying the original document.
	+ Cons: Slower and more resource-intensive compared to the append method, as it requires parsing the entire HTML string.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation and provides a convenient API for working with HTML documents. In this benchmark, jQuery's `append` and `parseHTML` methods are used to compare their performance when handling HTML strings.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax (None)**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ECMAScript 5/ES6.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to jQuery, some popular options include:

1. Vanilla JavaScript: Using native DOM methods and manipulating the document directly without relying on a library.
2. React: A popular JavaScript library for building user interfaces and managing state changes.
3. Vue.js: Another popular JavaScript framework for building web applications.

For more efficient HTML manipulation, you might also consider using:

1. **DOMPurify**: A library that provides a safer way to sanitize and manipulate HTML strings.
2. **jsdom**: A Node.js library that allows you to work with DOM documents in JavaScript, providing a more reliable alternative to jQuery's `parseHTML` method.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, so it's essential to evaluate them based on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery(htmlstring) vs jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring) #2 (version: 0)

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

Created: 5 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 llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):