Benchmark: Split vs replace for url

Script Preparation code:

var example = 'test.url.com'

Tests:

split
var result = example.split('.')[0];
replace
var result = example.replace('.url.com', '')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split
replace

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split	11291681.0 Ops/sec
replace	10288002.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for parsing URLs:

1. `split` (Splitting)
2. `replace` (Replacing)

**Script Preparation Code:**
```javascript
var example = 'test.url.com';
```
This sets a sample URL as the input variable `example`.

**Html Preparation Code:**
No HTML code is provided, suggesting that this benchmark focuses solely on JavaScript performance.

**Individual Test Cases:**

There are two test cases:

1. **`split` (Split) Test Case:**
```javascript
var result = example.split('.')[0];
```
This code uses the `split()` method to split the URL into an array of substrings, and then takes the first element (`[0]`) as the result.

2. **`replace` (Replace) Test Case:**
```javascript
var result = example.replace('.url.com', '');
```
This code uses the `replace()` method with a regular expression to remove the `.url.com` substring from the URL, and assigns the resulting string to the `result` variable.

**Library Usage:**

Neither of these test cases explicitly uses any external libraries. The built-in JavaScript `split()` and `replace()` methods are used directly in the code.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark definition. It's a straightforward comparison of two basic string manipulation methods.

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

* **`split()` method:**
	+ Pros:
		- More explicit and readable way to extract substrings from a URL.
		- Can handle cases with multiple dots (e.g., `test.url.subdomain.com`) by splitting on any number of dots.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower than the `replace()` method, especially for large URLs or performance-critical applications.
* **`replace()` method:**
	+ Pros:
		- Generally faster and more efficient than `split()`, especially when removing a single specific substring.
		- Can handle cases with multiple dots by specifying the exact replacement pattern (e.g., `.url.com`).
	+ Cons:
		- Less explicit and readable way to extract substrings from a URL, which can make it harder to understand for some developers.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to parse URLs in JavaScript, consider using the following methods:

1. `URL()` API (modern browsers): This provides a more modern and flexible way to work with URLs.
2. Regular expressions: You can use regular expressions to extract specific substrings from a URL, but this approach is generally less efficient than `split()` or `replace()`.
3. String manipulation functions: Some libraries (e.g., Underscore.js) provide custom string manipulation functions that can be used for parsing URLs.

When choosing an approach, consider the trade-offs between readability, performance, and maintainability. The original benchmark definition provides a good starting point for comparing these two approaches, but you may want to explore other methods depending on your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Split vs replace for url (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: split vs replace

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split

replace

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):