Benchmark: replace vs replaceAll xxx

Tests:

replace with global
'target {id} to replace {id}'.replace(/{id}/g, '0000');
replaceAll with global
'target {id} to replace {id}'.replaceAll('{id}', '0000');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replace with global
replaceAll with global

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark is testing two approaches to replacing a specific string in a given target string:

1. `replace()`: Replaces all occurrences of a substring with another substring.
2. `replaceAll()`: Replaces all occurrences of a pattern with another value (in this case, '0000').

**Comparison Options**

* **`replace()`**: This method uses the `g` flag at the end of the regular expression to perform a global replacement, meaning it replaces all occurrences of the substring, not just the first one.
* **`replaceAll()`**: This method is part of the String.prototype object and is specifically designed for replacing substrings with another value. It's more concise than using `replace()` but may have performance implications.

**Pros and Cons**

* `replace()`: Pros:
	+ More flexible, as it can handle complex regular expressions.
	+ Better suited for situations where you need to replace only the first occurrence of a substring.
* Cons:
	+ May be slower due to the overhead of parsing the regular expression and performing global replacements.
	+ Requires additional flags (e.g., `g` flag) to achieve global replacement.
* `replaceAll()`: Pros:
	+ Concise and easier to read, especially when replacing substrings with another value.
	+ Optimized for performance in many JavaScript engines.
* Cons:
	+ Less flexible than `replace()` due to its limited functionality (only replaces substrings with another value).

**Library Usage**
In this benchmark, the `replaceAll()` method is part of the String.prototype object, which means it's a built-in JavaScript function. No external library is required.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**
None of the provided test cases use special JavaScript features or syntax that requires explanation.

**Other Alternatives**

* **`String.prototype.replace()`**: While not explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition, this method could be used as an alternative to `replaceAll()`. It's similar to `replace()` but uses a regular expression by default.
* **`RegExp.prototype.exec()` and `String.prototype.replace()` with custom replacement functions**: More complex approaches might involve creating a custom RegExp object or using a `replace()` function with a callback. These methods can provide more control over the replacement process but are often less readable and may have performance implications.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be relevant to the specific benchmark being tested, as it's primarily concerned with comparing the performance of `replace()` and `replaceAll()`.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/116.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 116 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replace with global	4870780.0 Ops/sec
replaceAll with global	2843417.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

replace vs replaceAll xxx (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: replace with global vs replaceAll with global

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

replace with global

replaceAll with global

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):