Benchmark: DOMParser vs InnerHTML benchmark 3rsgsgfgfs

HTML Preparation code:

<p>Some paragraph</p>

Script Preparation code:

var htmlBody = `<div>
	<h3>A body coming from an API... or somewhere else</h3>
	<div id="html-mock-body">It can contain regular HTML Elements and scripts with links.</div>
</div>`;
var domParser = new DOMParser();

Tests:

DOMParser
const doc = domParser.parseFromString(htmlBody, 'text/xml'); doc.querySelector('h3');
InnerHTML
const container = document.createElement('div'); container.innerHTML = htmlBody; container.querySelector('h3');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
DOMParser
InnerHTML

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
DOMParser	43000.3 Ops/sec
InnerHTML	151103.9 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 benchmark JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two approaches to parse HTML and retrieve an element:

1. **DOMParser**: This approach uses the `DOMParser` API to parse the HTML string into a Document Object Model (DOM) tree.
2. **InnerHTML**: This approach uses the `innerHTML` property of an HTML element to set its content.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two options for each approach:

1. **Parsing vs Setting InnerHTML**: The first option parses the HTML using DOMParser, and the second option sets the innerHTML of an existing HTML element.
2. **Creating a new element vs Using an existing one**: In the DOMParser approach, a new Document object is created, whereas in theInnerHTML approach, an existing HTML element is used.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **DOMParser**:
	+ Pros: More flexible, allows for more control over parsing, and can handle complex HTML structures.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than setting innerHTML, as it involves parsing the entire HTML string.
* **InnerHTML**:
	+ Pros: Faster, as it only sets the content of an existing element.
	+ Cons: Less flexible, as it's limited to existing elements.

**Library and purpose**

In this benchmark, the `DOMParser` library is used to parse HTML strings into DOM trees. The `innerHTML` property is a built-in JavaScript feature that sets the content of an HTML element.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark uses the `querySelector()` method to retrieve an element from the parsed DOM tree or the existing HTML element's innerHTML. This method is available in most modern browsers and provides a convenient way to navigate the DOM.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, here are some options:

* **JSDOM**: A JavaScript implementation of the DOM standard, which can be used as an alternative to DOMParser.
* ** cheerio**: A lightweight HTML parser that's often used in Node.js applications.
* **htmlparser**: Another JavaScript HTML parser that provides a more flexible and customizable way to parse HTML strings.

In summary, this benchmark compares two approaches to parse HTML and retrieve an element: using DOMParser or setting innerHTML. The choice between these approaches depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

DOMParser vs InnerHTML benchmark 3rsgsgfgfs (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: DOMParser vs InnerHTML

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

DOMParser

InnerHTML

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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