Benchmark: replace test ogehogehoge

Tests:

use filter
const HIRAGANA_FOR_QUICK_PUSH = 'あいうえおかきくけこさしすせそたちつてとなにぬねのはひふへほまみむめもやゆよらりるれろわをん'; const missleadingAnswerLetters = ['あ', 'い', 'う', 'え', 'お']; const answer = 'か'; const characterArray = HIRAGANA_FOR_QUICK_PUSH.split('').filter(character => !missleadingAnswerLetters.concat(answer).includes(character));
use replace
let HIRAGANA_FOR_QUICK_PUSH = 'あいうえおかきくけこさしすせそたちつてとなにぬねのはひふへほまみむめもやゆよらりるれろわをん'; const missleadingAnswerLetters = ['あ', 'い', 'う', 'え', 'お']; const answer = 'か'; missleadingAnswerLetters.concat(answer).forEach((toReplaceLetter) => { HIRAGANA_FOR_QUICK_PUSH = HIRAGANA_FOR_QUICK_PUSH.replace(toReplaceLetter, ''); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
use filter
use replace

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is essentially the JavaScript code that defines the test case. In this case, there are two benchmark definitions:

1. `const HIRAGANA_FOR_QUICK_PUSH = '...'; // ...` (filter method)
2. `let HIRAGANA_FOR_QUICK_PUSH = '...'; // ...` (replace method)

The purpose of these benchmark definitions is to test the performance of two different approaches for removing specific characters from a string:

* Approach 1: Using the `filter()` method
* Approach 2: Using the `replace()` method with a callback function

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases, each corresponding to one of the benchmark definitions. The test case contains the following information:

* `Benchmark Definition`: The JavaScript code that defines the test case.
* `Test Name`: A descriptive name for the test case.

In this case, there are only two test cases:

1. "use filter"
2. "use replace"

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. Using the `filter()` method to remove specific characters from a string.
2. Using the `replace()` method with a callback function to achieve the same result.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Filter() Method**
	+ Pros:
		- Simple and straightforward syntax.
		- Efficient for small strings.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slow for large strings due to the overhead of creating an array and iterating over it.
* **Replace() Method with Callback Function**
	+ Pros:
		- Can handle large strings efficiently by modifying the string in place without creating a new array.
		- Allows for more control over the replacement process (e.g., handling multiple replacement patterns).
	+ Cons:
		- More complex syntax than `filter()`.
		- May require additional memory allocation and deallocation.

**Library**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition, but it appears that the `filter()` method is using an internal JavaScript array method to achieve the desired result. However, if you were to implement a custom implementation of the filter() method, you might need to use external libraries like Lodash or Underscore.js.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark definition that require specific knowledge of modern JavaScript. The code is relatively simple and straightforward, making it accessible to a wide range of developers.

**Alternatives**

If you were looking for alternative approaches to test string replacement performance, some options might include:

* Using the `map()` method with a callback function to replace characters.
* Implementing a custom implementation using bitwise operations or regular expressions (although this would likely be less efficient than the built-in methods).
* Using a library like FastString or String-Pooler for optimized string manipulation.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
use filter	109587.6 Ops/sec
use replace	2016161.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

replace test ogehogehoge (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: use filter vs use replace

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

use filter

use replace

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):