Benchmark: replace with global regexp vs replaceAll

Tests:

replace with global regexp
"i want to replace all the spaces in this string".replace(/ /g, "+");
replaceAll
"i want to replace all the spaces in this string".replaceAll(" ", "+");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replace with global regexp
replaceAll

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition Overview**

The benchmark aims to compare two different approaches for replacing spaces in a string: using a global regular expression (`/ /g`) and using the `replaceAll` method from a library. The script preparation code is empty, which means that the JavaScript engine will execute the provided script directly. There's no HTML preparation code specified either.

**What's being tested?**

In this benchmark, two different approaches are compared:

1. **Global regular expression (`/ /g`)**: This approach uses a regular expression to match all spaces in the input string and replaces them with an empty string.
2. **Library-based `replaceAll` method**: This approach uses the `replaceAll` method from a library ( likely a built-in JavaScript function or a third-party library) to replace all occurrences of spaces in the input string.

**Options being compared**

The two approaches have different pros and cons:

1. **Global regular expression (`/ /g`)**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: Can be error-prone if not properly escaped, and may not work as expected with complex regex patterns.
2. **Library-based `replaceAll` method**:
	* Pros: More readable, safer (as it uses the built-in function), and easier to maintain than using a global regular expression.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of calling an external library.

**Libraries being used**

In this benchmark, two libraries are not explicitly mentioned, but we can infer that:

1. The `replaceAll` method is likely a built-in JavaScript function (`String.prototype.replaceAll` or its alias, `String.prototype.replaceAll`).
2. The global regular expression (`/ /g`) uses the browser's internal regex engine.

**Other considerations**

When testing this benchmark, consider the following factors:

* Browser version: Different browsers may have varying performance and behavior for both approaches.
* Input string size: Larger input strings can affect performance due to increased memory allocation and processing time.
* Platform: The test environment should be consistent across different devices (e.g., desktop vs. mobile) and platforms.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches that could be considered for this benchmark include:

1. Using a third-party library like `lodash` or `underscore`, which offer optimized string replacement functions.
2. Implementing the replacement logic in native JavaScript, avoiding built-in library calls.
3. Comparing performance with other string replacement methods, such as using a loop to iterate over the input string.

Keep in mind that the specific alternatives will depend on the goals of the benchmark and the desired level of complexity.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replace with global regexp	4669033.0 Ops/sec
replaceAll	4003852.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

replace with global regexp vs replaceAll (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: replace with global regexp vs replaceAll

Created: 5 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

replace with global regexp

replaceAll

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):