Benchmark: replaceAll vs regex replace fefw

Script Preparation code:

String.prototype.replaceAll = function(search, replacement) {
    var target = this;
    return target.replace(new RegExp(search, 'g'), replacement);
};

Tests:

replace regex
"this is it".replace(/\s+/g, '');
replace All
"this is it".replaceAll(" ", "");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replace regex
replace All

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The first part of the benchmark is a JavaScript code snippet that defines two methods: `replaceAll` and `replace`. Both methods are intended to replace a specified string with another string. However, there's a catch: `replaceAll` uses a custom implementation (defined in the `Script Preparation Code`) that appears to be a modified version of the standard `replace()` method.

**Comparison**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches:

1. **Regular Expression Replacement (`replace`)**: This approach uses the built-in `replace()` method with a regular expression (regex) pattern. The regex pattern `/\\s+/g` matches one or more whitespace characters (`\\s+`) globally (`g` flag).
2. **Custom Implementation (`replaceAll`)**: This approach uses the custom `replaceAll()` method defined in the benchmark's `Script Preparation Code`. This implementation replaces a single character with another string.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Regular Expression Replacement (replace)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Widely supported by most browsers
		- Can be efficient for matching patterns with multiple characters
	+ Cons:
		- May have performance issues for very large strings or complex patterns
		- Limited control over the replacement process
* **Custom Implementation (`replaceAll`)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Can provide better performance for simple string replacements
		- Offers more control over the replacement process
	+ Cons:
		- Requires custom implementation and may not be supported by all browsers

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript implementations might use built-in functions or libraries for regex-related functionality.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The `\\s+` regex pattern uses a special syntax called "escape sequence" to match whitespace characters. The `\n`, `\t`, and `\r` escape sequences are used in the benchmark's HTML preparation code, but they're not relevant to this specific comparison.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test similar scenarios, you could explore other approaches, such as:

* Using a library like jQuery for string manipulation
* Comparing different regex flavors (e.g., PCRE vs. ECMAScript)
* Testing optimized string replacement algorithms or techniques

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require modifying the benchmark's script preparation code and potentially introducing new variables.

For this specific comparison, the focus is on understanding the performance differences between using built-in `replace()` methods versus custom implementations like `replaceAll`.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/126.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replace regex	3909649.2 Ops/sec
replace All	2840662.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

replaceAll vs regex replace fefw (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: replace regex vs replace All

Created: 4 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

replace regex

replace All

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):