Benchmark: replaceAll vs regex global replace

Script Preparation code:

String.prototype.replaceAll = String.prototype.replaceAll || function(search, replacement) {
    var target = this;
    return target.replace(new RegExp(search, 'g'), replacement);
};

Tests:

replace regex
"this is it".replace(/ /g, "+");
replace All
"this is it".replaceAll(" ", "+");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replace regex
replace All

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition:**
The website provides a benchmark to compare two string replacement methods in JavaScript:

1. `String.prototype.replace()` with regular expressions (regex)
2. A custom implementation of `String.prototype.replaceAll()`

**Script Preparation Code:**
The script preparation code defines the `String.prototype.replaceAll()` method, which is an alias for the original `replace()` method if it doesn't exist. This allows us to test both methods in a single benchmark.

```javascript
String.prototype.replaceAll = String.prototype.replaceAll || function(search, replacement) {
  var target = this;
  return target.replace(new RegExp(search, 'g'), replacement);
};
```

**What's being tested:**

We have two individual test cases:

1. `replace regex`: This test case uses the built-in `replace()` method with a regex pattern to replace all occurrences of whitespace characters (`\s`) with a plus sign (`+`).
```javascript
"this is it".replace(/ /g, "+");
```

2. `replace All`: This test case uses the custom implementation of `String.prototype.replaceAll()` to replace all occurrences of whitespace characters with a plus sign.
```javascript
"this is it".replaceAll(" ", "+");
```

**Comparison:**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two methods in replacing whitespace characters.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Regular Expressions (`replace regex`):**
	* Pros:
		+ Supports regular expression patterns for more complex replacements.
		+ Can be more efficient for certain use cases due to caching and internal optimizations.
	* Cons:
		+ May have higher overhead due to the complexity of the regex engine.
		+ Might not perform well with very large strings or simple replacement patterns.
2. **Custom Implementation (`replace All`):**
	* Pros:
		+ May be faster for simple cases due to reduced overhead and caching.
		+ Can provide better performance for certain edge cases (e.g., replacing whitespace characters).
	* Cons:
		+ Requires additional code and maintenance effort.
		+ Might not support more complex replacement patterns.

**Library:**
There is no explicit library used in this benchmark. However, the `replace()` method uses the browser's built-in regex engine, which is a standard JavaScript feature.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**
The custom implementation of `String.prototype.replaceAll()` uses a technique called "polyfilling," which is not specific to modern browsers but rather a design pattern for providing fallback implementations. This allows older browsers that don't support the original method to use the polyfilled version instead.

Other alternatives for string replacement in JavaScript include:

1. Using other library functions (e.g., `String.prototype.replace()` from the DOM API or external libraries like Lodash).
2. Implementing a custom replacement function using a different approach (e.g., using a loop with String.prototype.split() and String.prototype.join()).
3. Utilizing browser-specific features like WebAssembly for optimized string manipulation.

Keep in mind that this benchmark focuses on comparing two specific methods, so exploring alternative approaches might not provide new insights into the performance differences between them.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/103.0.5060.114 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 103 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replace regex	9640941.0 Ops/sec
replace All	7678462.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

replaceAll vs regex global replace (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: replace regex vs replace All

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

replace regex

replace All

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):