Benchmark: Replace vs Split

Tests:

Split
function split(name){ return name.split('$')[1] } console.log(split('Something$ksdlaskdsa'));
replace
function replace(name){ return name.replace(/^[a-z]*\$/i,'') } console.log(replace('Something$ksdlaskdsa'));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Split
replace

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases, each with its own JavaScript function definition and code execution. The functions are:

1. `split(name)`: This function takes a string as input, splits it into an array of substrings using the `$` character as a delimiter, and returns the second element of the resulting array (`[name.split('$')[1]]`). The test case provides a specific input string `'Something$ksdlaskdsa'`, which contains the `$` character.

2. `replace(name)`: This function takes a string as input, uses a regular expression to remove any characters from the beginning that match the pattern `[a-z]` and an optional dollar sign at the end (`^[a-z]*\\$/i`), and returns the modified string (`return name.replace(...)`). The test case also provides a specific input string `'Something$ksdlaskdsa'`, which is used to demonstrate this function's behavior.

**Options Comparison:**

In this benchmark, two approaches are compared:

1. **Split**: This approach uses the `split()` method with a custom delimiter (`$`) to split the input string into an array and return the second element.
2. **Replace**: This approach uses the `replace()` method with a regular expression to remove specific characters from the beginning of the input string.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Split**:
	* Pros: Simple, easy to understand, and works well for simple cases where the delimiter is not too complex.
	* Cons: Can be inefficient if the input string contains many delimiters or if the delimiter appears at the start of the string, leading to unnecessary string concatenation or splitting.
2. **Replace**:
	* Pros: More flexible and efficient than `split()`, especially when dealing with complex patterns or cases where the match is not always at the beginning of the string.
	* Cons: May be slower for simple cases due to the overhead of regular expressions, which can slow down the execution time.

Other considerations:

* Both approaches have security implications, as they rely on user-provided input. However, in this specific case, the input strings seem to be crafted to test the functions rather than pose a security risk.
* The `split()` method uses a custom delimiter (`$`), which is not a standard JavaScript character but is used for string manipulation.

**Library and Special JS Feature:**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, some older browsers like IE 11 might use specific libraries or polyfills to support modern JavaScript features or regular expressions.

The regular expression used in the `replace()` function (`^[a-z]*\\$/i`) is a standard JavaScript pattern that matches any string starting with lowercase letters and ending with an optional dollar sign. The `\i` flag at the end makes the match case-insensitive, allowing it to work correctly for inputs containing uppercase characters.

**Alternatives:**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark using modern JavaScript features or alternative approaches, you might consider:

1. **String.prototype.replace()**: This method is more efficient and flexible than `replace()` when working with regular expressions.
2. **Array.prototype.slice()**: This method can be used as an alternative to `split()` for extracting a specific element from an array.
3. **RegEx.prototype.test()**: This method can be used instead of `replace()` when the goal is to test if a string matches a certain pattern.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide exactly the same results or performance characteristics as the original benchmark, so it's essential to evaluate them carefully and test them thoroughly.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; Trident/7.0; gdn/adcp; managedpc; rv:11.0) like Gecko

Browser/OS: IE 11 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Split	1225628.5 Ops/sec
replace	1112767.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Replace vs Split (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Split vs replace

Created: 6 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 27 days ago):