Benchmark: replace vs replaceAll v3000

Tests:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regex
replaceAll

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/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regex	11874426.0 Ops/sec
replaceAll	9489719.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases:

1. `replace`: This test case measures the performance difference between using the native `String.prototype.replace()` method and a custom implementation that replaces spaces with double quotes.
2. `replaceAll`: This test case measures the performance of replacing spaces with double quotes using the `String.prototype.replaceAll()` method.

**Options compared**

In each test case, only two options are being compared:

* Native `replace()` (or `replaceAll()`)
* Custom replacement function

These options represent different approaches to achieve the same result: replacing spaces in a string with double quotes.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Native `replace()` (or `replaceAll()`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Efficient, optimized for performance by the JavaScript engine.
		+ Familiar API for developers, reducing learning curve.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be directly comparable to custom implementations without considering specific browser optimizations or differences in execution plan.
2. **Custom replacement function**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides insight into the custom implementation's performance and potential bottlenecks.
		+ Can help identify areas for optimization or improvement in the custom code.
	* Cons:
		+ May be less efficient due to overhead from custom logic, caching, or other factors.

**Library usage**

In both test cases, no external libraries are used. However, if we were to compare a library implementation (e.g., `String.prototype.replace()` vs. a library-specific function), it would depend on the specific library and its implementation details.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in these test cases. The focus is solely on comparing two basic string replacement approaches.

**Alternatives**

If you want to explore other alternatives, here are some possibilities:

* Using regular expressions with specific flags (e.g., `String.prototype.replace()` vs. `String.prototype.replace(/\s+/g, '+')`)
* Implementing a custom regex engine or library
* Using alternative string replacement methods, such as `Array.prototype.map()`
* Optimizing the custom implementation using caching, memoization, or other techniques

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require additional test cases and considerations to accurately compare their performance.

In conclusion, these two test cases measure the performance difference between native `replace()` (or `replaceAll()`) and a custom replacement function. By comparing these options, we can gain insight into the efficiency of each approach and identify potential bottlenecks in our own code.

Related benchmarks:

replace vs replaceAll v3000 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: regex vs replaceAll

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

regex

replaceAll

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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