Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
innerHTMLParser vs domParser
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
innerHTMLParser vs domParser
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var htmlString = Array(100001).join('<div>x</div>');
Tests:
innerHTMLParser
function innerHTMLParser(htmlString) { const tempNode = document.createElement('div') tempNode.innerHTML = htmlString return tempNode.childNodes }
domParser
function domParser(htmlString) { return (new DOMParser()) .parseFromString(htmlString, 'text/html') .body.childNodes }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
innerHTMLParser
domParser
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down what's being tested on the provided JSON and explain the different approaches, their pros and cons, and other considerations. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark compares two approaches to parse HTML strings: `innerHTMLParser` and `domParser`. The goal is to determine which approach is faster and more efficient. **Options Compared** 1. **innerHTMLParser**: This method uses the `innerHTML` property of an HTML element to parse the string. It creates a temporary `<div>` element, sets its `innerHTML` property to the input string, and returns the child nodes of the temporary element. 2. **domParser**: This method uses the `DOMParser` API provided by WebKit browsers (Safari) or Gecko browsers (Firefox). It creates a new instance of `DOMParser`, parses the input HTML string using its `parseFromString` method, and returns the body node's child nodes. **Pros and Cons** * **innerHTMLParser**: + Pros: Simple implementation, easy to understand. + Cons: May be slower due to the need to create a temporary element and parse its `innerHTML`, which can lead to performance issues with large input strings. * **domParser**: + Pros: More efficient for parsing HTML strings, as it uses the browser's built-in parser. + Cons: Requires WebKit or Gecko browsers (Safari and Firefox), respectively, and may have compatibility issues with other browsers. **Other Considerations** The benchmark also considers the special JavaScript features used in each approach: * **innerHTMLParser**: This method uses the `innerHTML` property, which is a standard feature in modern JavaScript engines. However, some older browsers might not support it. * **domParser**: This method relies on the `DOMParser` API, which is a proprietary feature introduced by Apple (Safari) and Mozilla (Firefox). While widely supported, there's still a chance of compatibility issues with other browsers. **Library** The `DOMParser` library is used in the `domParser` approach. Its purpose is to parse HTML strings and return a DOM tree representation of the input string. **Special JS Feature** There's no special JavaScript feature mentioned between these two approaches, as they rely on standard features or proprietary APIs. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for parsing HTML strings include: * **DOMParser alternatives**: There are other libraries and implementations available, such as `xml2js` (a JSON-based parser) and `parse5` (a full-featured HTML parser). However, these might have different performance characteristics and compatibility issues compared to the built-in `DOMParser`. * **JavaScript engines with built-in parsing**: Some JavaScript engines, like V8 (used by Chrome), have built-in parsing capabilities that can be used for HTML string manipulation.
Related benchmarks:
javascript join
str += vs join
string comparison vs array includes pt2
Array.join vs String join
string vs array comparison
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?