Benchmark: JQuery: parseHTML vs without parse

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.4.1/jquery.js'></script>

Tests:

without parse
let element = $(`<div><a id="tr_1" data-target="tr_5" aria-controls="tr_6"> <svg id="tr_2"></svg> <span id="tr_3"></span> <div id="tr_4" data-target="tr_7"> </div> </div>`);
with parseHTML
let element = $($.parseHTML(`<div><a id="tr_1" data-target="tr_5" aria-controls="tr_6"> <svg id="tr_2"></svg> <span id="tr_3"></span> <div id="tr_4" data-target="tr_7"> </div> </div>`));

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 6 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 6 runs

without parse

60K/s

with parseHTML

10K/s

Fastest: without parse (6.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ without parse: 60,322 ops/sec
• with parseHTML: 9,708 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
without parse
with parseHTML

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/136.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 136 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

without parse

46K/s

with parseHTML

11K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ without parse	46,317 Ops/sec
with parseHTML	10,869 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 definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which includes:

*   **Name**: A unique name for the benchmark, in this case, "JQuery: parseHTML vs without parse".
*   **Description**: A brief description of the test, explaining that it measures the speed for creating a JQuery object.
*   **Script Preparation Code**: An empty string, indicating that no custom script is required for setup.
*   **Html Preparation Code**: A script tag referencing jQuery library version 3.4.1, which will be included in each test run.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark includes two individual test cases:

### Without Parse

```javascript
let element = $(`<div><a id="tr_1" data-target="tr_5" aria-controls="tr_6">\r\n            <svg id="tr_2"></svg>\r\n            <span id="tr_3"></span>\r\n            <div id="tr_4" data-target="tr_7">\r\n            </div>\r\n            </div>`);
```

This test case uses a direct DOM creation approach, creating an element using the jQuery `$` function without parsing any HTML.

### With ParseHTML

```javascript
let element = $($.parseHTML(`<div><a id="tr_1" data-target="tr_5" aria-controls="tr_6">\r\n            <svg id="tr_2"></svg>\r\n            <span id="tr_3"></span>\r\n            <div id="tr_4" data-target="tr_7">\r\n            </div>\r\n            </div>`));
```

This test case uses the `$.parseHTML()` method to parse an HTML string before creating the element using jQuery.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing two options:

1.  Using `$(element)` without parsing HTML.
2.  Using `$($.parseHTML(element))` with parsing HTML.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

*   **Without Parse (Direct DOM Creation)**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Faster execution time due to reduced overhead from parsing HTML.
        *   May be more suitable for small, simple elements or use cases where HTML parsing is not necessary.
    *   Cons:
        *   Can lead to inconsistent results if the structure of the element changes between iterations.
*   **With ParseHTML (Parsable HTML Creation)**:
    *   Pros:
        *   More consistent results due to accurate representation of the original HTML structure.
        *   Suitable for use cases where the structure of the element may change between iterations.
    *   Cons:
        *   May incur additional execution time overhead from parsing HTML.

**Other Considerations**

*   **Library Usage**: The benchmark uses jQuery, which is a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. In this case, it's being used to create elements without needing explicit HTML parsing.
*   **Special JS Feature or Syntax**: Neither of the test cases utilizes any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard jQuery usage.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives could include:

1.  Using a different library like Vanilla DOM or another lightweight DOM manipulation library.
2.  Implementing a custom element creation function without relying on a library.
3.  Utilizing web workers to parallelize the execution of different parts of the benchmark.

These alternatives would depend on specific requirements, constraints, and performance goals for each use case.

JQuery: parseHTML vs without parse (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Test speed for create of JQuery object

Comparing performance of: `without parse vs with parseHTML`

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

without parse

with parseHTML

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 6 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

JQuery: parseHTML vs without parse (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Test speed for create of JQuery object

Comparing performance of: without parse vs with parseHTML

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

without parse

with parseHTML

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 6 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Comparing performance of: `without parse vs with parseHTML`