Benchmark: replace vs split/join

Tests:

replace
const rib = '4444333322221111'; const any4CharsGroupExceptLastOne = /.{4}(?<!$)/g; const nonBreakingHyphen = '‑'; const addHyphenToGroup = `$&${nonBreakingHyphen}`; `${rib}`.replace(any4CharsGroupExceptLastOne, addHyphenToGroup);
split/join
const rib = '4444333322221111'; const NON_BREAKING_HYPHEN = '‑'; rib.match(/.{1,4}/g).join(NON_BREAKING_HYPHEN);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replace
split/join

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is called "replace vs split/join" and its purpose is to compare the performance of two approaches: using the `replace()` method with a regular expression (regex) replacement string, and using the `split()` method followed by the `join()` method. The focus is on replacing specific groups in a string.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares:

1. **Replace Method**: Using `replace()` with a regex pattern to replace specific characters in the input string.
	* Pros:
		+ Easy to implement and understand.
		+ Can be efficient if the regex pattern is simple and the replacement string is short.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as efficient as other approaches for complex patterns or large strings.
		+ Can be vulnerable to security issues if not used carefully (e.g., using user-input data).
2. **Split/Join Method**: Using `split()` to split the input string into groups based on a regex pattern, and then joining these groups together with another string.
	* Pros:
		+ Can be efficient for complex patterns or large strings.
		+ Provides more control over the output format compared to the replace method.
	* Cons:
		+ May be less intuitive and harder to understand than the replace method.
		+ Requires additional memory allocation and handling for the split/join process.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* **String Complexity**: If the input string is simple, the replace method might be sufficient. For more complex strings, the split/join approach can provide better performance.
* **Pattern Complexity**: If the regex pattern is simple and short, the replace method can be efficient. However, for complex patterns or large strings, the split/join approach can take advantage of optimized splitting and joining algorithms.
* **Performance**: Measuring executions per second (as shown in the benchmark result) can help determine which approach performs better under different conditions.

**Library/Functionality Used**

In the provided test cases:

1. The `replace()` method uses a regex pattern to replace characters in the input string.
2. The `split()` and `join()` methods are used together to split a string into groups based on a regex pattern and then join these groups with another string.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that require specific handling or explanations.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches for replacing characters in a string could include:

1. **Using the `indexOf()` method**: Repeatedly searching for occurrences of the character to replace.
2. **Using a custom loop**: Iterating over the input string and manually updating the string based on the replacement logic.
3. **Using a different regex dialect** (e.g., PCRE): Depending on the specific use case, other regex dialects might provide better performance or features.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may not be as efficient or flexible as the compare-benchmarked approaches, and their performance will depend on various factors such as string complexity, pattern complexity, and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/88.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 88 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replace	1193316.9 Ops/sec
split/join	1152587.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

replace vs split/join (version: 0)

replace vs split/join

Comparing performance of: replace vs split/join

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

replace

split/join

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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