Benchmark: Split+join vs replace vs replaceAll

Script Preparation code:

var example = 'Example 1,,;Example 2,,;Example 3,,;Example 4'

Tests:

split + join
var result = example.split(',,;').join('; ');
replace
var result = example.replace(/,,;/g, '; ')
replaceAll
var result = example.replaceAll(',,;', '; ')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split + join
replace
replaceAll

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 and its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined in two parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code creates an example string `example` with multiple values separated by different separators (`'',',,;'`).
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This part is empty, which means no HTML-related setup or configuration is required for the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases that compare different approaches to handle the same input data:

1. **Split+Join**
	* The `split()` method splits the string into an array of values using a separator (`'',',,;'`).
	* The resulting array is then joined back together with another separator (`'; '`) using the `join()` method.
2. **Replace**
	* A regular expression (`/,,;/g`) replaces all occurrences of the separator (`'',',,;'`) with a new separator (`'; '`) in the original string.
3. **replaceAll**
	* The same approach as above, but this method uses the `replaceAll()` method specifically designed for replacement.

**Options Compared**

The three approaches compare different ways to handle the input data:

1. Split and Join: This approach involves splitting the array of values and then joining them back together, which can be less efficient than replacing the original separator.
2. Replace: This approach uses a regular expression to replace the separator directly in the string, which is more efficient for large datasets.
3. replaceAll (ECMAScript 2017+): This approach is similar to the previous one but uses the `replaceAll()` method, which is part of ECMAScript 2017 and later versions.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

1. Split+Join:
	* Pros: Can handle more complex data structures (e.g., nested arrays).
	* Cons: May be less efficient for large datasets due to the overhead of creating an array.
2. Replace:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, especially for regular expressions.
	* Cons: Limited to replacing single characters or patterns; may not work well with complex data structures.
3. replaceAll (ECMAScript 2017+):
	* Pros: Efficient and fast, specifically designed for replacement operations.
	* Cons: Only available in ECMAScript 2017 and later versions.

**Library and Special JS Features**

None of the test cases use any external libraries or special JavaScript features other than:

1. Regular expressions (`/,,;/g`): Used in the Replace approach to replace the separator.
2. `replaceAll()` method (ECMAScript 2017+): Used in the replaceAll approach.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches that could be used for benchmarking similar operations include:

1. Using a custom implementation of string replacement using loops or other methods.
2. Using a more advanced data structure like a trie or suffix tree to handle complex data structures.
3. Comparing different optimization techniques, such as caching or memoization, for the Replace and replaceAll approaches.

These alternatives would require additional setup and configuration but could provide valuable insights into the performance characteristics of different algorithms.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 130 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split + join	4786318.0 Ops/sec
replace	4233700.0 Ops/sec
replaceAll	4374831.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Split+join vs replace vs replaceAll (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: split + join vs replace vs replaceAll

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split + join

replace

replaceAll

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):