Benchmark: replaces - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'Woops! ha ocurrido un error al enviar la solicitud, vuelve a intentarlo.'
str.split(' ').join('_');

Tests:

split join 1
var str = 'Woops! ha ocurrido un error al enviar la solicitud, vuelve a intentarlo.' str.split(' ').join('_');
replace 2
var str = 'Woops! ha ocurrido un error al enviar la solicitud, vuelve a intentarlo.' str.replace(/ /g,"_");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split join 1
replace 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test on MeasureThat.net, where users can create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of two different string manipulation operations: splitting a string into words and replacing spaces with underscores.

**Test Case 1: `split join 1`**

This test case uses the following code as its benchmark definition:
```javascript
var str = 'Woops! ha ocurrido un error al enviar la solicitud, vuelve a intentarlo.'\r\nstr.split(' ').join('_');
```
The purpose of this test is to measure the performance of splitting a string into words and then joining them with underscores. The input string contains both regular spaces (` `) and line breaks (`\r\n`).

**Test Case 2: `replace 2`**

This test case uses the following code as its benchmark definition:
```javascript
var str = 'Woops! ha ocurrido un error al enviar la solicitud, vuelve a intentarlo.'\r\nstr.replace(/ /g,"_);
```
The purpose of this test is to measure the performance of replacing all spaces in the string with underscores. The regular expression `/ /g` matches all occurrences of one or more spaces (` `) and replaces them with an underscore (`_`). Note that the `\r\n` line breaks are not affected by this operation.

**Comparison Options**

There are two main comparison options for these tests:

1. **String splitting vs. string replacement**: These tests compare the performance of two different string manipulation operations: splitting a string into words and joining them with underscores, versus replacing all spaces in the string with underscores.
2. **Browser vs. no browser (headless)**: The test result also shows that Chrome 65 running on a Windows device executed each benchmark at approximately half the rate as its headless counterpart.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **String splitting**: Pros:
	+ More intuitive for developers familiar with string manipulation.
	+ Can be more readable code, especially when working with arrays or other data structures.
*   Cons:
    *   May involve unnecessary allocations (e.g., creating an array to store the words).
    *   Performance can degrade if dealing with very large input strings.

* **String replacement**: Pros:
    + More efficient, as it only requires a single pass through the string.
    + Often faster for replacing multiple occurrences of the same character or pattern.
*   Cons:
    *   Can be less intuitive for developers unfamiliar with regular expressions.
    *   May lead to unexpected behavior if not properly tested.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, there are no explicitly mentioned libraries. However, some JavaScript implementations might include additional libraries like:

*   **RegExp** (Regular Expressions): The `replace` method in Test Case 2 uses a regular expression (`/ /g`) to match spaces.
*   **String.prototype.split()**: This method splits the input string into words and returns an array.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as:

*   **ES6 modules**
*   **Async/await**
*   **Promises**
*   **let` and `const` declarations

These tests focus on the performance of basic string manipulation operations.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/65.0.3325.181 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 65 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split join 1	2152754.2 Ops/sec
replace 2	1251814.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

replaces (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: split join 1 vs replace 2

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split join 1

replace 2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):