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)
$(document.body).append($(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: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 60 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery(htmlstring)	17873.7 Ops/sec
jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)	2948.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript benchmarks.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test between two approaches: jQuery's `htmlstring` and `parseHTML` methods for manipulating HTML strings. The goal is to measure which method is faster, more efficient, or provides better performance.

**Test Case Options Compared**

In this case, we have two primary options being compared:

1. **jQuery(htmlstring)**: This approach uses the `append()` method on the `document.body` element, passing an HTML string (`htmlstring`) as an argument.
2. **jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)**: This approach uses jQuery's `parseHTML()` method to parse the HTML string (`htmlstring`) and then appends the resulting HTML structure to the `document.body`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **jQuery(htmlstring)**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward implementation.
		+ Less overhead compared to parsing the entire HTML string.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as efficient for large or complex HTML strings, as it relies on `append()` which can cause unnecessary DOM modifications.
2. **jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)**
	* Pros:
		+ Can handle more complex HTML structures and provides a better way to manipulate the resulting structure.
	* Cons:
		+ May introduce additional overhead due to parsing the entire HTML string, which can be time-consuming for large inputs.

**Library and Purpose**

In this case, jQuery is used as a library for manipulating HTML strings. Specifically:

1. **jQuery.append()**: A method that appends a node or an HTML string to the end of the specified element.
2. **jQuery.parseHTML(htmlstring)**: A method that parses an HTML string into a DOM structure.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

1. **Vanilla JavaScript**: Implement the same logic using only vanilla JavaScript, without relying on jQuery.
2. **DomPurify**: A library that provides a safer way to manipulate HTML strings, which might be worth considering if security is a concern.
3. **String manipulation libraries**: Libraries like jsDOM or jsdom-xml can provide efficient string manipulation capabilities.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach ultimately depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preferences.

Related benchmarks:

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

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

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

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):