Benchmark: Split join vs replace statics

Script Preparation code:

var example = 'S A H'

Tests:

split + join
var result = example.split('A').join(' ');
replace
var result = example.replace('A', '')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split + join
replace

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases, explaining what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided benchmark definition is a simple JavaScript code that defines an example string `example` with the value `'S A H'`. This string contains a space character ' ' and two instances of the letter 'A'. The benchmark focuses on three different approaches to manipulate this string:

1. **Split + Join**: The code uses the `split()` method to divide the string into an array of substrings, separated by the specified delimiter (in this case, `'A'`). Then, it uses the `join()` method to concatenate the substrings back into a single string, with a space character as the separator.
2. **Replace**: The code uses the `replace()` method to replace all occurrences of the letter 'A' in the original string with an empty string (`''`), effectively removing them.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two different approaches:

*   Split + Join: This approach involves creating an intermediate array of substrings and then concatenating them back into a single string. It requires more operations than the Replace method.
*   Replace: This approach directly modifies the original string by replacing all occurrences of 'A' with an empty string, without creating any intermediate data structures.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

*   **Split + Join**:  
    *   Pros:
        *   Can handle complex replacement patterns.
        *   Often used in more general-purpose string manipulation tasks.
    *   Cons:
        *   Creates an intermediate array, which can lead to increased memory usage.
        *   More operations are required compared to the Replace method.
*   **Replace**:  
    *   Pros:
        *   Fast and efficient, as it directly modifies the original string.
        *   Requires fewer operations than the Split + Join approach.
    *   Cons:
        *   Limited to simple replacement patterns (in this case, replacing a single character).
        *   May not work as expected if the character is used in other contexts.

**Library Usage**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript implementations might use internal libraries or optimized functions for string manipulation tasks.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax highlighted in this benchmark definition. The code only uses basic standard JavaScript syntax and methods (e.g., `split()`, `join()`, `replace()`).

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to manipulating strings in JavaScript could include:

*   **Using a regular expression**: Instead of using the `replace()` method, you might consider using a regular expression with the `RegExp.prototype.replace()` method or a string replacement function.
*   **Using `split()`, `map()`, and `join()` together**: Another possible approach is to split the string into an array, use the `map()` method to modify each element (if needed), and then join the elements back together. This could potentially be more efficient than using the Replace method.

However, the Replace method seems like a suitable choice for this specific benchmark due to its simplicity and efficiency in replacing a single character.

Overall, the provided benchmark definition provides a good example of how JavaScript engineers can compare different approaches to manipulating strings in their code.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.114 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split + join	2827285.0 Ops/sec
replace	4804698.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Split join vs replace statics (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: split + join vs replace

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split + join

replace

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):