Benchmark: test-replaceall213

Tests:

replace regex
"this is it".replace(/ /g, "+");
replaceall
"this is it".replaceAll(" ", "+");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replace regex
replaceall

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 11_2_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/89.0.4389.58 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 89 on Mac OS X 11.2.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replace regex	4852125.0 Ops/sec
replaceall	2535824.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, the options compared, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case on MeasureThat.net. The test is designed to compare two different replacement functions: `replace()` and `replaceAll()`. These functions are used to replace substrings in a string.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`replace()` function**: This function replaces all occurrences of a regular expression pattern (`/ /g`) with a specified replacement value (`"+"`). The `/ /g` pattern matches one or more whitespace characters globally, and the `+` character is used to replace each match.
2. **`replaceAll()` function**: This function is not a standard JavaScript function (it's not recognized by most browsers or Node.js). However, MeasureThat.net assumes it's available and uses it as an alternative replacement function.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`replace()` function**:
	* Pros: widely supported by modern browsers and Node.js, efficient, and well-documented.
	* Cons: the `/ /g` pattern might not match all types of whitespace characters (e.g., tabs or line breaks), which could lead to unexpected results.
2. **`replaceAll()` function** (assuming it's a custom implementation):
	* Pros: potentially more accurate than `replace()` for certain use cases, as it replaces the entire substring (`" \"`).
	* Cons: not a standard JavaScript function, so its behavior might vary across browsers and environments; it's likely to be slower or less efficient than `replace()`.
3. **Custom implementation (not shown in the benchmark)**:
	* Pros: potentially optimized for specific use cases or performance requirements.
	* Cons: requires additional code, which increases complexity and maintenance efforts.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript implementations of `replace()` might rely on underlying libraries or frameworks to handle regular expressions efficiently.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. If you're interested in exploring other JavaScript features or syntax, MeasureThat.net provides a wide range of benchmarks and test cases covering various aspects of JavaScript performance.

**Other Alternatives**

If you'd like to explore alternative replacement functions or approaches, here are some options:

* Use `String.prototype.replace()` with a regular expression object instead of the `replace()` function.
* Implement a custom implementation using a different string manipulation library (e.g., String.prototype.replaceAll()).
* Compare performance with other modern JavaScript features, such as:
	+ Using `RegExp.prototype.exec()` to perform substitution.
	+ Utilizing WebAssembly or native modules for optimized string manipulation.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be directly comparable to the provided benchmark, and their performance characteristics may vary.

Related benchmarks:

test-replaceall213 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: replace regex vs replaceall

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

replace regex

replaceall

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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