Benchmark: JS replaceAll vs split+join replace

Tests:

replace All
"this is it".replaceAll(" ", "+");
split+join
"this is it".split(" ").join(" ");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replace All
split+join

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Understanding the Benchmark**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. In this case, we're analyzing a benchmark that compares two approaches: `replaceAll` vs `split+join replace`.

The test cases are defined in a JSON file, which includes:

1. **Benchmark Definition**: A string that describes the JavaScript code being tested.
2. **Script Preparation Code** and **Html Preparation Code**: These fields are empty, indicating that no additional setup is required for the benchmark.

The individual test cases are defined as an array of objects, each containing:

1. **Benchmark Definition**: The same string from the previous point, which represents the JavaScript code being tested.
2. **Test Name**: A descriptive name for the test case.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared in this benchmark:

1. `replaceAll` (also known as `replaceAll` or `str.replace()`) - a built-in JavaScript method that replaces all occurrences of a substring with another substring.
2. `split+join replace` (or `split()` followed by `join()` with a replacement string) - an approach that uses the `split()` method to split a string into an array, then joins the array back together using the `join()` method with a specified separator.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **replaceAll**:
	* Pros: Simple, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for all cases (e.g., when dealing with non-ASCII characters or complex regular expressions).
2. **split+join replace**:
	* Pros: More flexible than `replaceAll`, as it allows for custom separators and can handle more complex scenarios.
	* Cons: Less efficient than `replaceAll` due to the overhead of creating an array and joining its elements.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the specific requirements of your use case:

* If you need a simple, fast solution that works well for most cases, `replaceAll` might be the better choice.
* If you need more control over the replacement process or want to handle complex scenarios, `split+join replace` might be the way to go.

**Library and Features**

The benchmark uses no libraries. There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you're interested in exploring other approaches, consider:

1. Using regular expressions (e.g., `RegExp.prototype.replace()`): This can provide more control over the replacement process but may be less efficient.
2. Utilizing string manipulation functions like `indexOf()`, `lastIndexOf()`, and `substring()`: These functions can be used to build custom solutions that cater to specific use cases.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might not provide significant performance gains or advantages, as they often involve more complex code paths.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/117.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 117 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replace All	925688.2 Ops/sec
split+join	1043363.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JS replaceAll vs split+join replace (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: replace All vs split+join

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

replace All

split+join

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):