Benchmark: test array vs regex

Script Preparation code:

var str = "abcdefg\n".repeat(1000);

Tests:

array
var res1 = str.split(`\n`).join(`hijklmnop\n`);
regex
var res = str.replace(/(.+|)?\n/gm, `$1hijklmnop\n`);
regex fn
var res = str.replace(/(.+|)?\n/gm, (match, v) => `${v}hijklmnop\n`);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array
regex
regex fn

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/104.0.5112.102 Safari/537.36 Edg/104.0.1293.70

Browser/OS: Chrome 104 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array	9226.7 Ops/sec
regex	11128.8 Ops/sec
regex fn	3718.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case that compares three approaches for replacing newline characters in a string:

1.  **Array method**: Using the `split()` and `join()` methods to replace newline characters.
2.  **Regular Expression (Regex) method**: Using a regular expression to search and replace newline characters.
3.  **Arrow function (Regex fn) method**: Using an arrow function with a regular expression as its body.

**Options Comparison**

The three approaches differ in their syntax, efficiency, and potential impact on performance:

*   **Array method**:
    *   **Pros:** Easy to read and understand, uses built-in JavaScript methods.
    *   **Cons:** May be slower due to the overhead of creating an array and joining it back into a string.
*   **Regex method**:
    *   **Pros:** Can be more efficient for certain patterns, provides a clear and concise syntax.
    *   **Cons:** May require additional setup and configuration, can be slower if not optimized properly.
*   **Arrow function (Regex fn) method**:
    *   **Pros:** Combines the benefits of arrow functions and regular expressions, can be more readable.
    *   **Cons:** May require a bit more setup and understanding of JavaScript syntax.

**Library Usage**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some libraries like Lodash or Ramda provide utility functions for string manipulation, which could potentially be used to implement these methods.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark uses arrow functions (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) and template literals (also introduced in ECMAScript 2015), but does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require specific knowledge of the language. The regular expression syntax used is a standard RegExp object syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for string manipulation, consider the following:

*   **String.prototype.replace()**: Another method provided by the String prototype to replace substrings.
*   **String.prototype.split()**: A method to split a string into an array of substrings.
*   **Intl`: The Internationalization API provides methods like `Intl.DateTimeFormat` and `Intl.NumberFormat`, but also includes some useful string manipulation functions.
*   **Underscore.js** or **Lodash**: These popular utility libraries provide a range of functional programming helpers, including those for string manipulation.

These alternatives may offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and syntax complexity. MeasureThat.net provides an excellent platform to experiment with various approaches and find the most efficient solution for your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

test array vs regex (version: 6)

Comparing performance of: array vs regex vs regex fn

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

array

regex

regex fn

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):