Benchmark: "decodeHTMLEntities" vs DOM Parser

Script Preparation code:

var testString = '<body><script>alert(1);</script foo="bar">' + Array(100001).join('<div>x</div>') + '</body>';

Tests:

CreateElement_div
function test_innerHTML() { var element = document.createElement('div'); function decodeHTMLEntities(str) { if (str && typeof str === 'string') { // strip script/html tags str = str.replace(/<script[^>]*>([\S\s]*?)<\/script>/gmi, ''); str = str.replace(/<\/?\w(?:[^"'>]|"[^"]*"|'[^']*')*>/gmi, ''); element.innerHTML = str; str = element.textContent; element.textContent = ''; } return str; } return decodeHTMLEntities(testString); }
DOMParser
function test_DOMParser() { return (new DOMParser).parseFromString(testString, 'text/html').documentElement.innerText; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
CreateElement_div
DOMParser

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
CreateElement_div	142890528.0 Ops/sec
DOMParser	157377296.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark JSON provided represents a performance comparison between two methods for decoding HTML entities in a string: a custom function (`decodeHTMLEntities`) and the `DOMParser` API. Let's break down the elements involved:

### Comparison Overview

1. **Options Being Compared**:
   - **`decodeHTMLEntities` Function**: This function manually processes input strings by stripping out HTML tags and decoding the contents via `innerHTML`.
   - **`DOMParser`**: This built-in JavaScript API provides an interface to parse XML or HTML documents into a DOM `Document` which we can then interact with. It is more streamlined and leverages the browser’s native parsing capabilities.

### Pros and Cons

**decodeHTMLEntities Function**:
- **Advantages**:
  - **Control**: It provides more control over how the string is processed, allowing custom manipulation before and after decoding.
  - **Browser Compatibility**: It likely has widespread compatibility across browsers since it doesn't depend on web standards that might vary (although this is generally not a concern for modern browsers).
  
- **Disadvantages**:
  - **Performance**: Parsing string content and managing `innerHTML` can introduce overhead, especially in large strings.
  - **Complexity**: The function is more verbose and convoluted, making it harder to maintain and debug. The use of regular expressions can be error-prone and may introduce corner cases.

**DOMParser**:
- **Advantages**:
  - **Performance**: Typically, leveraging a browser’s built-in capability to parse HTML is much faster than using custom logic, particularly for larger text bodies.
  - **Simplicity**: The use of `DOMParser` abstracts away the intricacies of parsing, leading to cleaner code that is easier to understand and maintain.

- **Disadvantages**:
  - **Browser Compatibility**: While most modern browsers support `DOMParser`, there may be edge cases or older browsers that do not implement it flawlessly. Additionally, it might introduce security risks if not appropriately handled, particularly with untrusted content (e.g., XSS attacks).
  - **Overhead**: For extremely simple decoding requirements, using `DOMParser` may be overkill and introduce overhead compared to a lightweight custom solution.

### Libraries and Features

- **DOMParser**: As mentioned, this is a built-in JavaScript feature that allows you to create a DOM document from a string representing HTML or XML. This can be a powerful tool when dealing with text that may include untrusted content, as it handles parsing according to the HTML standards.

### Other Considerations

- When deciding between these methods, engineers should consider the context of usage. If performance is critical (e.g., processing very large text strings frequently), `DOMParser` is likely the better choice. On the other hand, if fine control over parsing behavior is essential, a custom implementation may still be preferable.
  
- Alternatives to these methods could include other parsing libraries (like `htmlparser2` in Node.js environments) that might offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, safety, and ease of use.

### Benchmark Results Summary
In the benchmark results:
- `DOMParser` performed better with **157,377,296 executions per second** versus the `decodeHTMLEntities` function at **142,890,528 executions per second**. This supports the expectation that using built-in browser features generally yields better performance due to optimization.

This benchmark provides valuable insights into performing DOM manipulations and text processing, which can be critical in various web development scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

"decodeHTMLEntities" vs DOM Parser (version: 1)

This benchmark compares the "decodeHTMLEntities" function proposed by https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5796718/html-entity-decode and the solution via DOMParser.

Comparing performance of: CreateElement_div vs DOMParser

Created: one month ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

CreateElement_div

DOMParser

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):