Benchmark: Replace text vs slice text

Script Preparation code:

var textCid = 'Replace';
var text = 'Replace text vs slice text';

Tests:

Replace
text.replace(textCid, '');
Slice
text.slice(textCid.length);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Replace
Slice

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:87.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/87.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 87 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Replace	9672542.0 Ops/sec
Slice	86317392.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two approaches to replace or slice text in JavaScript: `text.replace()` and `text.slice()`. The test case uses a sample string `"Replace text vs slice text"` and replaces its content with an empty string using either method.

**Options compared**

* **`text.replace()`**: This method takes two arguments: the text to be replaced and the replacement string. It returns a new string with the specified characters removed.
* **`text.slice()`**: This method takes two optional arguments: the start index and end index. If not provided, it slices from the beginning of the string up to but not including the index limit. In this case, we're using `textCid.length` as the end index.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

* **`text.replace()`**:
	+ Pros: Easy to use, intuitive API.
	+ Cons: May be slower than slicing due to string concatenation, potential memory allocation issues for large strings.
* **`text.slice()`**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster for large strings since it only creates a new string object without concatenating characters. It also avoids potential memory allocation issues.
	+ Cons: Less intuitive API, requires understanding of indices and slicing behavior.

**Other considerations**

* The benchmark uses `textCid` as the replacement text, which is hardcoded to `'Replace'`. This simplifies the test but may not accurately represent real-world scenarios where text might be dynamically replaced.
* The test case doesn't account for edge cases like replacing an empty string with a non-empty one or vice versa.

**Library and special JS feature**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript strings are immutable by default, which means they can't be modified in place. This makes `text.replace()` and `text.slice()` behave differently than some languages where strings can be modified directly (e.g., Python).

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to measure the performance of other string replacement methods, you could consider:

* **`String.prototype.replace()`**: Similar to `text.replace()`, but with a more concise API.
* **`Array.prototype.map()`**: Could be used to create a new array of replaced strings, although this might have different performance characteristics than the original test.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require modifications to the benchmark setup and test cases.

Related benchmarks:

Replace text vs slice text (version: 0)

Replace text vs slice text

Comparing performance of: Replace vs Slice

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Replace

Slice

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):