Benchmark: xml vs json - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

XML
const html = "<html><body><div>test</div></body></html>" const parser = new DOMParser(); const virtualDom = parser.parseFromString(html, 'text/html'); const body = virtualDom.querySelector('body');
JSON
const html = ` { "type": "element", "name": "html", "children": [ { "type": "element", "name": "body", "children": [ { "type": "element", "name": "div", "children": [ { "type": "text", "value": "test" } ] } ] } ] } `; const parsed = JSON.parse(html); const body = parsed.children[0]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
XML
JSON

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:149.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/149.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 149 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
XML	143095.0 Ops/sec
JSON	1541319.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmarking test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The two test cases compare the performance of parsing and rendering HTML documents using JavaScript. Specifically, they are comparing:

1. **DOMParser**: A built-in JavaScript API for parsing XML documents into a Document Object Model (DOM).
2. **JSON.parse()**: A built-in JavaScript function for parsing JSON data into a JavaScript object.

**Options compared:**

The test cases compare the performance of two approaches:

A) Using `DOMParser` to parse an HTML string and render it as a DOM.
B) Parsing the same HTML string using `JSON.parse()` (although technically, this is not JSON, but rather an HTML document).

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **DOMParser**:
	* Pros:
		+ Native support in most browsers
		+ Efficient for large documents
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slow for small or simple documents (due to the overhead of creating a DOM)
2. **JSON.parse()**:
	* Pros:
		+ Lightweight and fast for small or simple documents
		+ Can be used in environments where DOM is not supported
	* Cons:
		+ Not native support in all browsers (although it's widely implemented)
		+ May require additional processing to render the HTML

**Library:**

In this case, there isn't a specific library being compared. However, both `DOMParser` and `JSON.parse()` rely on internal browser APIs or implementations that are considered standard.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax:**

There is no special feature or syntax being tested in these benchmarks. They focus solely on the performance comparison between two parsing approaches.

**Other alternatives:**

For parsing HTML documents, other alternatives might include:

1. **Cheerio**: A lightweight, fast JavaScript library for parsing and manipulating HTML documents.
2. **JQuery.parseHTML()**: A method within jQuery that parses HTML strings into a DOM.
3. **XPath expressions**: An XPath expression can be used to query the structure of an HTML document.

However, these alternatives are not being tested in this specific benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

xml vs json (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: XML vs JSON

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

XML

JSON

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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