Benchmark: regex .replace() vs literal .replaceAll()

Tests:

replace()
"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.".replace(/dolor/g, "foundit");
replaceAll()
"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.".replaceAll("dolor", "foundit");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replace()
replaceAll()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of two JavaScript string replacement methods: `.replace()` and `.replaceAll()`. The benchmark is designed to measure the execution speed of these methods when replacing simple strings without requiring regex features like capture groups.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared in this benchmark:

1. **`String.prototype.replace()`**: This method replaces a specified pattern with a given string. It's a widely used and versatile method for string manipulation.
2. **`String.prototype.replaceAll()`**: This method is similar to `replace()`, but it's specifically designed for replacing all occurrences of a pattern in a string, without the need for regex features.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* `.replace()`:
	+ Pros:
		- More flexible than `.replaceAll()` due to its ability to use regex patterns.
		- Can be used for more complex string manipulation tasks.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires manual escaping of special characters, which can lead to errors.
		- May have performance implications when dealing with large strings or complex patterns.
* `.replaceAll()`:
	+ Pros:
		- Easier to use than `.replace()`, as it eliminates the need for regex patterns and manual escaping.
		- More efficient for replacing all occurrences of a string, without requiring additional loops or methods.
	+ Cons:
		- Less flexible than `.replace()`, due to its limited regex capabilities.

**Library Usage**

Neither of the benchmark tests uses any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that both `String.prototype.replace()` and `String.prototype.replaceAll()` are built-in methods in JavaScript, making them a part of the language itself.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

This benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's required for the basic `.replace()` and `.replaceAll()` methods. However, it does use a fixed string literal (`"Lorem ipsum..."`) as input to both methods, which is a common practice in testing and benchmarking.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to modify this benchmark to explore different alternatives, here are some options:

1. Compare the performance of `String.prototype.replace()` with other replacement methods, such as using a regular expression object or a third-party library like RegEx.
2. Add additional test cases that simulate more complex string manipulation scenarios, such as replacing substrings or handling edge cases (e.g., replacing an empty string).
3. Use different input types, such as arrays of strings or JSON objects with string properties, to explore the performance implications of these methods on more complex data structures.

Keep in mind that modifying this benchmark would require careful consideration of the test cases and inputs to ensure accurate results.

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/106.0.0.0 YaBrowser/22.11.0.2468 Yowser/2.5 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Yandex Browser 22 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replace()	2583578.5 Ops/sec
replaceAll()	2382326.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

regex .replace() vs literal .replaceAll() (version: 0)

Test simple string replacement when we don't need regex features such as capture groups.

Comparing performance of: replace() vs replaceAll()

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

replace()

replaceAll()

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):