Benchmark: Split join vs replace to slugify

Script Preparation code:

var example = 'Agreement Change Id'

Tests:

split + join
var result = example.split(' ').join(' ');
replace
var result = example.replace(/ /g, '-')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split + join
replace

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:107.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/107.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 107 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split + join	6548807.5 Ops/sec
replace	9371418.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of three different approaches to convert a string from camelCase format to a slug (a string of words separated by hyphens) in JavaScript.

The benchmark definition json specifies that it will test two specific scripts:

1. `var result = example.split(' ').join(' ');` which uses the `split()` method with a space character as the separator, and then immediately concatenates the resulting array using the `join()` method.
2. `var result = example.replace(/ /g, '-');` which uses a regular expression to replace all spaces in the input string with hyphens.

**Options being compared**

The two approaches are being compared:

* Approach 1: Splitting the input string into an array using `split()`, and then joining it back together using `join()`.
* Approach 2: Using a single regular expression replacement to convert all spaces to hyphens.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

* **Approach 1 (Split + Join)**
	+ Pros:
		- Clear and easy-to-understand syntax
		- Uses built-in methods that are familiar to most developers
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slower due to the overhead of creating an array and then joining it back together
		- May require more memory, depending on the size of the input string
* **Approach 2 (Replace)**
	+ Pros:
		- Often faster than Approach 1, since it only requires a single operation
		- May be more efficient in terms of memory usage
	+ Cons:
		- Uses a regular expression, which can add complexity to the code
		- The regular expression itself may be slower or less reliable for certain inputs

**Library and purpose**

In this benchmark, the `String.prototype.split()` and `String.prototype.join()` methods are used. These are built-in JavaScript methods that split a string into an array of substrings based on a specified separator, and then join those substrings back together with a specified separator.

The regular expression `/ /g` is also used in Approach 2. This regular expression matches a single space character (`/ /`) and repeats it globally (`g`). The `^` symbol at the beginning of the pattern indicates that we want to match the first occurrence of the pattern.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being used in this benchmark. Both approaches use standard JavaScript methods and constructs.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to test alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* Using `substr()` instead of `split()`: This would involve using the `substr()` method to extract individual characters from the input string, rather than splitting it into an array.
* Using a library like `lodash` or `underscore` for string manipulation: These libraries provide a range of utility methods for working with strings, including slugification functions that might be faster or more efficient than Approach 1 or 2.
* Using a different algorithm for slugification: For example, you could use a simple replacement approach like this: `var result = example.replace(/([A-Z])/g, '-$1');`. This would involve using a regular expression to match each uppercase letter in the input string and replace it with that same letter followed by a hyphen.

Related benchmarks:

Split join vs replace to slugify (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: split + join vs replace

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split + join

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):