Benchmark: replaceAll vs regex DbSgf435

Tests:

regex
"this is it".replace(/ /g, "+");
replaceAll
"this is it".replaceAll(" ", "+");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regex
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.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, the options compared, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that describes two different approaches for replacing whitespace characters in a string: regular expressions (regex) and the `replaceAll()` method.

```json
"Name": "replaceAll vs regex DbSgf435",
"Description": null,
"Script Preparation Code": null,
"Html Preparation Code": null
```

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases, each with its own benchmark definition:

1. **regex**
```json
"Benchmark Definition": "\"this is it\".replace(/ /g, \"+\");"
```
This test case uses a regular expression to replace all whitespace characters (` `) in the string `"this is it"` with a literal plus sign (`+`).

2. **replaceAll**
```json
"Benchmark Definition": "\"this is it\".replaceAll(\" \", \"+\");"
```
This test case uses the `replaceAll()` method to replace all whitespace characters (`\s`) in the same string `"this is it"` with a literal plus sign (`+`).

**What's being tested?**

In essence, these two test cases are comparing the performance of different approaches for replacing whitespace characters in a string. The regex approach uses a regular expression to perform the replacement, while the `replaceAll()` method uses a specific syntax to achieve the same result.

**Options compared**

The options being compared here are:

1. **Regular Expressions (regex)**
	* Pros:
		+ Can match complex patterns and replacements
		+ Can be used for more advanced string manipulation tasks
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower due to the overhead of compiling regular expressions
		+ May have performance issues with very large input strings or complex patterns
2. **`replaceAll()` method**
	* Pros:
		+ Often faster than regex due to compiler optimizations
		+ Less memory-intensive, as it doesn't require compiling a regular expression
	* Cons:
		+ Limited flexibility in terms of replacement patterns and syntax

**Pros and cons**

The choice between using regex or the `replaceAll()` method depends on the specific requirements of your project. If you need more advanced string manipulation capabilities, regex might be a better choice. However, if performance is critical, the `replaceAll()` method might be a better option.

Other considerations:

* **Library usage**: Neither test case uses any external libraries, so there are no additional dependencies to consider.
* **Special JS features**: This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require specific explanations. The focus is on comparing two fundamental approaches for string replacement.
* **Alternatives**: Other alternatives for replacing whitespace characters could include using a library like `string-replace` (a simple string replacement function), or implementing custom replacement logic in your code.

Overall, this benchmark provides a useful comparison of the performance characteristics of two common approaches for replacing whitespace characters in JavaScript strings.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/96.0.4664.110 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 96 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regex	6399934.5 Ops/sec
replaceAll	5002738.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

replaceAll vs regex DbSgf435 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: regex vs replaceAll

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

regex

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):