Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Test speed for create of JQuery object v2
(version: 0)
Test speed for create of JQuery object from string
Comparing performance of:
without parse vs with parseHTML
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
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>`)[0]);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
without parse
with parseHTML
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):
I'll explain the benchmark in detail. **What is being tested?** MeasureThat.net is testing the speed of creating jQuery objects from strings, specifically with and without using the `$.parseHTML()` method. The tests are comparing the execution time of two approaches: 1. Creating a jQuery object directly from a string (without parsing) using the `$()` function. 2. Parsing an HTML string first and then creating a jQuery object from it using the `$.parseHTML()` method, followed by accessing the parsed HTML using `[0]`. **Options compared:** * **Direct creation**: Using `$()` to create a jQuery object directly from a string (without parsing). * **Parsing + direct access**: Using `$.parseHTML()` to parse an HTML string first and then creating a jQuery object from it, followed by accessing the parsed HTML using `[0]`. **Pros and cons of each approach:** * **Direct creation**: + Pros: Generally faster since it doesn't involve parsing the HTML string. + Cons: May not work correctly for all cases (e.g., if the HTML is malformed or contains unparseable elements). * **Parsing + direct access**: + Pros: Can handle more complex HTML structures and provides a way to extract specific elements from the parsed HTML. + Cons: Slower since it involves parsing the HTML string, which can be computationally expensive. **Library used:** The library being tested is jQuery, a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. **Special JS feature or syntax:** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of two approaches to creating jQuery objects from strings. **Other alternatives:** If you're interested in exploring alternative ways to create jQuery objects, you could consider using other libraries like: * Vanilla JavaScript (using `document.createElement()` and manipulating the DOM manually) * Other HTML parsing libraries like jsdom or htmlparser * Other frameworks or libraries that provide similar functionality to jQuery However, these alternatives are not being tested on MeasureThat.net. I hope this explanation helps!
Related benchmarks:
$ vs _
Thingie
object create vs others
Object creation speed benchmark
JSON Stringify Speed Test3
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?