Benchmark: jQuery vs HE (html entities) lib v5

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/jquery@2.2.4/dist/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/he@1.2.0/he.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var testVal = "a&quot;s&quot;d &amp; qwe";
var result = "";

Tests:

jQuery
for(var i = 0; i<99999; i++){ result += $('<div/>').html(testVal).text(); }
HE
for(var i = 0; i<99999; i++){ result += he.decode(testVal); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
HE

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases: one for jQuery and another for the HE (html entities) library, version 5.

**Benchmarking the HTML Entities Library**

The HE library is used to decode and escape HTML entities. In this case, we're testing its performance when decoding a string with a mix of HTML entities.

The benchmark definition code shows two approaches:

1. **jQuery**: This uses jQuery's `html()` method to set the inner HTML of an empty `<div>` element. The `text()` method is then called on that same element, effectively repeating the process of extracting the text content from the element.
2. **HE (html entities) library**: This directly calls the `decode()` function on the input string containing HTML entities.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **jQuery approach**:
	* Pros: jQuery's `html()` method is well-optimized for performance, and using it might leverage existing caching mechanisms. Additionally, jQuery provides a convenient way to work with HTML elements.
	* Cons: This approach involves an extra step of extracting the text content from an element, which could introduce unnecessary overhead. Moreover, this requires an additional DOM creation and manipulation, which can be slower than directly processing the input string.
2. **HE library approach**:
	* Pros: This approach is straightforward, as it only involves decoding the input string using the HE library's `decode()` function. It minimizes extra DOM operations or complex text extraction logic.
	* Cons: If not implemented correctly, this approach might be slower due to the additional string processing required by the `decode()` function.

**Other Considerations**

In both cases, the input string contains a mix of HTML entities (`&amp;`, `&#39;`, etc.). This could lead to slower performance if the HE library or jQuery's `html()` method need to perform extra checks or decoding steps for these special characters.

**Additional JavaScript Features and Syntax**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark, but it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript engines have optimizations for certain operations, such as array or string iteration.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for testing HTML entity library performance might include:

1. Using a dedicated HTML parsing library like `htmlparser`.
2. Implementing a custom parser using regular expressions.
3. Testing the performance of only decoding and escaping individual entities rather than processing entire strings.
4. Comparing the performance with other libraries that provide similar functionality, such as `DOMPurify`.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require modifying or extending the benchmark code to accommodate the new requirements.

Overall, this benchmark provides a simple yet effective way to compare the performance of the HE library and jQuery's `html()` method when dealing with HTML entities.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery vs HE (html entities) lib v5 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs HE

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

HE

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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