Benchmark: Replace vs Match

Tests:

Replace
"1234567890qwertyuiop".replace(/\d/g, '');
Match
"1234567890qwertyuiop".match(/\d/g)[0];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Replace
Match

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what is being tested, the options compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition specifies two test cases: "Replace" and "Match". The tests are designed to compare the performance of two different approaches for replacing a regular expression pattern in a string.

**Regular Expression Patterns**

In both test cases, the regular expression pattern is `/\\d/g`. This pattern matches any digit (`\d`) and globally replaces it (using `g` flag) with an empty string. The `\\d` syntax is used to escape the `\d` character, which would otherwise be interpreted as a special character.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare the performance of:

1. **String replacement**: Using the `replace()` method on the input string.
2. **Regular expression matching and indexing**: Using the `match()` method on the input string, followed by indexing into the matched array to retrieve the first element (`[0]`).

**Pros and Cons**

**String Replacement (Replace)**

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward approach
* Fewer system calls compared to regular expression processing
* Can be optimized for performance using specialized libraries or engines

Cons:

* May not perform well on large strings due to the overhead of string concatenation and garbage collection
* May not support Unicode characters correctly, depending on the implementation

**Regular Expression Matching and Indexing (Match)**

Pros:

* Can handle large strings efficiently without worrying about memory allocation
* Supports Unicode characters out-of-the-box
* Often optimized for performance by specialized libraries or engines

Cons:

* More complex and slower due to the overhead of regular expression parsing, compilation, and execution
* May require additional system calls compared to string replacement

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, no library is explicitly mentioned. However, it's likely that the `String` class and its methods (e.g., `replace()`) are part of the JavaScript Standard Library.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond regular expressions. The focus is on comparing two common approaches to string manipulation in JavaScript.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement a similar benchmark, you could consider adding more test cases, such as:

* Using other regular expression patterns (e.g., `\\w`, `\\s`, etc.)
* Adding additional factors that affect performance, like large strings or multiple concurrent executions
* Comparing the performance of different programming languages or implementations
* Incorporating additional optimization techniques, such as caching or memoization

Keep in mind that the specific alternatives you choose will depend on your goals and requirements for the benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:132.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/132.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 132 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Replace	2712078.2 Ops/sec
Match	2700019.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Replace vs Match (version: 0)

Replace vs Match

Comparing performance of: Replace vs Match

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Replace

Match

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):