Benchmark: replaceAll vs replace vs split-joinCD

Tests:

replace
"ala ma kota, kot ma alę".replace(/ /g, "+");
replaceAll
"ala ma kota, kot ma alę".replaceAll(" ", "+");
split-join
"ala ma kota, kot ma alę".split(" ").join("+");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replace
replaceAll
split-join

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/100.0.4896.60 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 100 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replace	179396.0 Ops/sec
replaceAll	968209.4 Ops/sec
split-join	1156484.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between three string manipulation methods: `replace()`, `replaceAll()`, and `split()` followed by `join()`. These methods are used to replace or remove spaces from a given string.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of:

1. **`replace()`**: Replaces all occurrences of a substring with another substring.
2. **`replaceAll()`**: Similar to `replace()`, but it's not part of the standard JavaScript API and may be implemented differently by browsers or engines.
3. **`split()`** followed by **`join()`**: Splits a string into an array using a delimiter (in this case, a space) and then joins the array back into a string with another delimiter (`+`).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`replace()`**:
	* Pros: Simple to implement, fast.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient for large strings due to its implementation in the browser's engine.
2. **`replaceAll()`** (non-standard):
	* Pros: None mentioned in the benchmark code; may have advantages depending on the specific implementation.
	* Cons: Not part of the standard JavaScript API, so results might vary across browsers or engines.
3. **`split()`** followed by `join()`:
	* Pros: More flexible than `replace()`, can handle multiple delimiters.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the extra operations (splitting and joining).

**Library Used**

None mentioned in the provided code.

**Special JavaScript Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. The focus is solely on measuring the performance of three string manipulation methods.

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives for string replacement could be:

* `indexOf()` and `substring()`: Replaces a substring by extracting parts around the target substring.
* Regular expressions (`RegExp`): Can be used to replace patterns in strings, but may have additional overhead.

These alternatives are not tested in this benchmark, but they might be worth exploring depending on specific use cases.

Related benchmarks:

replaceAll vs replace vs split-joinCD (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: replace vs replaceAll vs split-join

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

replace

replaceAll

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):