Benchmark: string replaceAll test

Script Preparation code:

function escapeRegExp(string) {
  return string.replace(/[.*+\-?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\$&'); // $& means the whole matched string
}
function replaceAll(str, find, replace) {
  return str.replace(new RegExp(escapeRegExp(find), 'g'), replace);
}

str = "Test abc test test abc test...Test abc test test abc test...Test abc test test abc test...Test abc test test abc test...Test abc test test abc test..."

Tests:

split and join
str.split("abc").join("def")
regex replace
replaceAll(str, 'abc', 'def')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split and join
regex replace

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided Benchmark Definition JSON represents two test cases:

1. `string replaceAll test`: This benchmark measures the performance of a custom `replaceAll` function, which replaces all occurrences of a specified string (`find`) with another string (`replace`) in a given input string (`str`). The input string is created using a regular expression to escape special characters.
2. Two other test cases:
	* `split and join`: This benchmark measures the performance of the `split` method followed by the `join` method, which splits a string into an array of substrings based on a specified separator and then joins them back into a single string using another separator.
	* `regex replace`: This benchmark measures the performance of a built-in regular expression replacement function (`replaceAll` is not used here), which replaces all occurrences of a specified pattern with a new string in a given input string.

**Comparison Options**

The two test cases use different approaches to measure performance:

1. **Custom `replaceAll` function**: The first test case uses a custom implementation of the `replaceAll` function, which might be optimized for specific use cases or requirements. This approach allows for more control over the replacement process but may introduce additional overhead due to the custom implementation.
2. **Built-in `split` and `join` methods**: The second test case uses the built-in `split` and `join` methods, which are part of the JavaScript language and optimized for performance.

**Pros and Cons**

**Custom `replaceAll` function:**

Pros:

* May be optimized for specific use cases or requirements.
* Allows for more control over the replacement process.

Cons:

* May introduce additional overhead due to custom implementation.
* Might not be compatible with all browsers or environments.

**Built-in `split` and `join` methods:**

Pros:

* Optimized for performance by the JavaScript language.
* Guaranteed compatibility across most browsers and environments.
* Less overhead compared to a custom implementation.

Cons:

* May have limitations in terms of customization or control over the replacement process.

**Library Usage**

The `replaceAll` function uses a library (regular expressions) to escape special characters and create a pattern for matching. This is a standard JavaScript feature and does not require any additional libraries.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned.

**Other Considerations**

When interpreting benchmark results, consider the following:

* **Number of executions**: The number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) gives an idea of how well each method performs in terms of raw speed.
* **Browser and platform**: The reported browser, device platform, operating system, and its version can affect performance. Consider these factors when comparing results across different environments.
* **Benchmark preparation code**: The script preparation code and HTML preparation code (if applicable) might influence the benchmark result. Make sure to follow best practices for benchmarking code.

**Alternative Benchmarks**

To test similar scenarios, consider using alternative benchmarks:

1. Using `String.prototype.replace()` instead of a custom implementation.
2. Measuring the performance of different regular expression flavors or patterns.
3. Comparing the performance of other string manipulation methods, such as `String.prototype.indexOf()` and `String.prototype.substring()`.
4. Testing different use cases, like replacing multiple substrings at once or handling edge cases.

Keep in mind that the specific benchmark options will depend on your requirements and goals.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/85.0.4183.83 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 85 on Mac OS X 10.14.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split and join	1562308.6 Ops/sec
regex replace	608301.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string replaceAll test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: split and join vs regex replace

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split and join

regex replace

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):