Benchmark: replaceAll vs regex replace for a newLine using html tags

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

replace regex
"\n<p>thisasdfasd it asdfasdf</p>\n".replace(/\n/g, "");
replace All
"\n<p>thisasdfasd it asdfasdf</p>\n".replaceAll("\\n", "");

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 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON for MeasureThat.net and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests two approaches to replacing newline characters (`\n`) in a string:

1. **Regex Replace**: This approach uses regular expressions (regex) to find and replace all occurrences of `\n` with an empty string.
2. **String.prototype.replaceAll**: This approach defines a custom `replaceAll` method on the String prototype, which is then used to replace all occurrences of `\n` with an empty string.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

* Regex Replace: Uses the built-in `replace()` method with a regex pattern (`/\\n/g`) to find and replace all occurrences of `\n`.
* String.prototype.replaceAll: Defines a custom `replaceAll` method on the String prototype, which is then used to replace all occurrences of `\n`.

**Pros and Cons**

**Regex Replace**

Pros:

* Widely supported by browsers and JavaScript engines.
* Efficient and concise syntax.

Cons:

* May be slower than custom implementations due to regex engine overhead.
* Can be less readable for complex patterns.

**String.prototype.replaceAll**

Pros:

* Custom implementation can be optimized for specific use cases.
* Can provide better performance in certain scenarios (e.g., when the replacement string is short).

Cons:

* Requires defining a new method on the String prototype, which may affect code readability and maintainability.
* May not be supported by all browsers or JavaScript engines.

**Library and Purpose**

The `String.prototype.replaceAll` approach uses the concept of prototypal inheritance in JavaScript. By defining a new method on the String prototype, we can reuse this implementation for all string objects in the application. This approach is useful when you need to perform similar replacement operations frequently throughout your codebase.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in these benchmark tests. The focus is solely on comparing the performance of two different approaches to string replacement.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* Using a third-party library like `lodash` or `ramda`, which provides optimized implementations for string manipulation and regex.
* Implementing a custom, native JavaScript implementation using the `String.prototype.replace()` method with a fixed-width search.
* Using a different data structure, such as an array of strings, to reduce the overhead of string operations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be relevant to the specific use case or benchmark being tested.

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/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replace regex	12356089.0 Ops/sec
replace All	3011763.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

replaceAll vs regex replace for a newLine using html tags (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: replace regex vs replace All

Created: one year 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 27 days ago):