Benchmark: replaceAll vs replace

Tests:

replace
"hola qué tal hola".replace('hola', 'hey');
replaceAll
"hola qué tal hola".replaceAll('hola', 'hey');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replace
replaceAll

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replace	11144476.0 Ops/sec
replaceAll	4316878.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark compares two string replacement methods: `replace()` and `replaceAll()`. The test cases use a simple string `"hola qué tal hola"` to demonstrate the difference between these two methods.

**Options compared:**

1. **`replace()`**: This method returns a new string with all occurrences of the specified value replaced.
2. **`replaceAll()`**: (Note: `replaceAll()` is not a standard JavaScript method. It's likely a custom implementation or a typo. For this explanation, we'll assume it's meant to be `replaceAll()` from the ICU library.)

**Pros and Cons:**

*   **`replace()`**:
    *   Pros:
        +   Widespread support across browsers and Node.js versions.
        +   Simple and intuitive API.
    *   Cons:
        +   Returns a new string, which may incur additional memory allocation overhead.

*   **`replaceAll()` (or `replaceAll()`) from ICU library**:
    +   Pros:
        *   Provides a standard method for replacing all occurrences of a value in a string.
        *   Can be more efficient than the `replace()` method when dealing with large strings or multiple replacements.
    *   Cons:
        +   Not widely supported across browsers and Node.js versions.
        +   Requires an additional library (ICU) that may not be included in all environments.

**Other considerations:**

*   **String concatenation vs. string replacement**: When working with strings, it's essential to consider the most efficient approach for your use case. If you need to perform multiple replacements or manipulate large strings, using `replace()` or `replaceAll()` might be a better choice.
*   **Memory allocation and garbage collection**: In JavaScript, creating new objects or arrays can trigger garbage collection, which may impact performance. When working with strings, it's generally more efficient to modify existing strings instead of creating new ones.

**Library and custom syntax:**

In this benchmark, the `replaceAll()` method is used from the ICU library. The ICU library provides a standardized way of replacing all occurrences of a value in a string, which can be beneficial when dealing with complex text processing tasks.

Note that there's no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in these test cases. However, if you're interested in exploring more advanced features like `regex` patterns or async/await, I'd be happy to help!

Related benchmarks:

replaceAll vs replace (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: replace vs replaceAll

Created: 2 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 2 months ago):