Benchmark: Split+join vs replaceAll

Script Preparation code:

var example = 'Example 1,,;Example 2,,;Example 3,,;Example 4'

Tests:

split + join
var result = example.split(',,;').join('; ');
replaceAll
var result = example.replaceAll(',,;', '; ')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split + join
replaceAll

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 91 on Windows 8.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split + join	1597795.0 Ops/sec
replaceAll	2250586.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case, specifically comparing the performance of two different approaches to manipulate a string: `split` and `join`, versus using the `replaceAll` method.

**Options compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Split and Join**: This approach involves splitting the input string into an array of substrings using the separator `''`, then joining the resulting array back into a single string with the separator `' '` as the new delimiter.
2. **Replace All**: This approach uses the `replaceAll` method to replace all occurrences of the substring `''` with the replacement string `' '.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Split and Join**:
	* Pros: Can be useful for splitting a string into an array of substrings, where each substring has a specific structure or format.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to creating an array and then joining its elements.
2. **Replace All**:
	* Pros: Typically faster than the split-and-join approach, as it only requires a single method call.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for all use cases, as it replaces all occurrences of the substring, whereas `split` and `join` allow for more flexibility in handling different substrings.

**Other considerations**

In addition to these two approaches, other methods might also be used to achieve similar results, such as using regular expressions or string manipulation libraries like jQuery.

**Library usage (if applicable)**

In this case, the `replaceAll` method is part of the JavaScript standard library, so no additional library needs to be loaded. However, if a different implementation were used, it might rely on a library like jQuery or a custom string manipulation library.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require specific knowledge or expertise to understand.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives to the `split` and `join` approach might include:

* Using regular expressions to split the string
* Using a custom implementation of the `replaceAll` method
* Utilizing a specialized library for string manipulation

It's worth noting that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case and requirements. The benchmarking framework, MeasureThat.net, is designed to help developers compare performance characteristics of different approaches in a controlled environment.

I hope this explanation helps!

Related benchmarks:

Split+join vs replaceAll (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: split + join vs replaceAll

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split + join

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):