Benchmark: Testing String Replacement

Script Preparation code:

'Karolingerstr. 43'.replace(new RegExp(/[\s\d]+/, 'g'), '');

Tests:

Test 1
var streetName = 'Karolingerstr. 43'.replace(new RegExp(/[\s\d]+/, 'g'), '');
Test 2
var streetName = 'Karolingerstr. 43'; var streetObj = streetName.split(' '); var houseNo = streetObj[streetObj.length - 1]; streetName = streetName.replace(houseNo, '');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Test 1
Test 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 113 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Test 1	6697280.0 Ops/sec
Test 2	17817400.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests string replacement. The script preparation code uses the `replace()` method with a regular expression to remove all whitespace characters (`\\s`) and digits (`\\d`) from a given string. This is done by replacing these characters with an empty string (`''`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared in this benchmark:

1. **Option 1**: Using the `replace()` method with a regular expression, as shown in the script preparation code.
2. **Option 2**: Splitting the string into individual parts using the `split()` method and then removing the last part.

**Pros and Cons**

**Option 1 (using replace())**

Pros:

* Efficient, as it only scans the string once.
* Simple to implement.

Cons:

* May not be suitable for strings with complex patterns or edge cases.
* Can be slower for large strings due to the overhead of regular expressions.

**Option 2 (splitting and removing)**

Pros:

* More robust, as it handles strings with whitespace characters and digits correctly.
* Easier to understand and maintain.

Cons:

* Less efficient, as it scans the string twice: once for splitting and again for removing the last part.
* May be slower due to the overhead of function calls.

**Other Considerations**

* **Regular Expressions**: The benchmark uses a regular expression to match whitespace characters and digits. While this is a common pattern, it may not be suitable for all use cases. A more comprehensive regex or alternative approach might be needed for certain applications.
* **String Encoding**: The benchmark assumes that the input string is encoded in a specific way ( likely UTF-8). If the input string uses a different encoding, the benchmark may produce incorrect results.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, some JavaScript engines might use internal libraries or built-in functions to optimize string manipulation. For example, V8 (used by Chrome) has a built-in `String.prototype.replace()` method that uses regular expressions internally.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and easy to understand, making it accessible to a wide range of software engineers.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for string replacement could include:

* Using the `String.prototype.replace()` method with a simple substitution pattern (e.g., replacing all whitespace characters with an empty string).
* Using a library like `regex-escapes` or `string-replace` to handle complex regular expressions.
* Using a streaming approach to process strings in chunks, rather than loading entire strings into memory.

Keep in mind that the best approach for string replacement depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your use case.

Related benchmarks:

Testing String Replacement (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Test 1 vs Test 2

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Test 1

Test 2

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):