Benchmark: Multiple RegExp Replacer2

Script Preparation code:

function filter1(message){
		const findArr = [
				'рев', 'ревнивый студент', 'ман', 'маньяк', 'студ', 'студент', 'гр', 'гражданин', 'лун', 'лунатик', 'док', 'доктор',
				'деж', 'дежурный', 'коп', 'комиссар', 'пом', 'помощник дежурного', 'серж', 'сержант',
				'пох', 'похититель', 'маф', 'мафиози', 'глава похитителей', 'босс мафии', 'босс',
				'котик', 'кот', 'вахтер', 'адвокат'
			],
			replaceArr = [
				'jeal', 'jeal', 'jeal', 'jeal', 'stud', 'stud', 'stud', 'stud', 'sleep', 'sleep', 'sleep', 'sleep',
				'duty', 'duty', 'duty', 'duty', 'assis', 'assis дежурного', 'assis', 'assis',
				'robb', 'robb', 'robb', 'robb', 'hrobb', 'hrobb', 'hrobb',
				'cat catm', 'cat', 'law', 'law'
			],
			replaceFunction = word => {
				const order = findArr.indexOf(word.trim().toLowerCase());
				return  order===-1 ? word : ' <span class="'+replaceArr[order]+'"></span> ';
			};
		message = message.replace(new RegExp('(^|\\s)('+findArr.join('|')+')(\\s|$)', 'gi'), replaceFunction);
}
function filter2(message){
	message = message.replace(/(^|\s)(рев|ревнивый студент|ман|маньяк)(\s|$)/gi,' <span class="jeal"></span> ');
	message = message.replace(/(^|\s)(студ|студент|гр|гражданин)(\s|$)/gi,' <span class="stud"></span> ');
	message = message.replace(/(^|\s)(лун|лунатик|док|доктор)(\s|$)/gi,' <span class="sleep"></span> ');
	message = message.replace(/(^|\s)(деж|дежурный|коп|комиссар)(\s|$)/gi,' <span class="duty"></span> ');
	message = message.replace(/(^|\s)(пом|помощник дежурного|серж|сержант)(\s|$)/gi,' <span class="assis"></span> ');
	message = message.replace(/(^|\s)(пох|похититель|маф|мафиози)(\s|$)/gi,' <span class="robb"></span> ');
	message = message.replace(/(^|\s)(глава похитителей|босс мафии|босс)(\s|$)/gi,' <span class="hrobb"></span> ');
	message = message.replace(/(^|\s)котик(\s|$)/gi,' <span class="cat catm"></span> ');
	message = message.replace(/(^|\s)кот(\s|$)/gi,' <span class="cat"></span> ');
	message = message.replace(/(^|\s)(вахтер|адвокат)(\s|$)/gi,' <span class="law"></span> ');
}

Tests:

Filter By Function
const text = 'Ты рев, лунатик или дежурный ? Пусть даже Вахтер! Главное, что не мафиози.'; filter1(text);
Filter By Strings
const text = 'Ты рев, лунатик или дежурный ? Пусть даже Вахтер! Главное, что не мафиози.'; filter2(text);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Filter By Function
Filter By Strings

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros/cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the performance of two different methods for replacing substrings in a string:

1. `filter1` function:
	* Uses a regular expression (RegExp) with multiple capturing groups to replace all occurrences of a substring.
	* The replacement is done using a custom function `replaceFunction`, which takes the matched substring and returns the modified version with HTML span elements added around it.
2. `filter2` function:
	* Uses multiple separate RegEx patterns to replace specific substrings in the string.

**Options being compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

1. **Filter By Function (filter1)**: This approach uses a single function to replace all occurrences of substrings, leveraging the power of JavaScript's `replace()` method with a custom replacement function.
2. **Filter By Strings (filter2)**: This approach uses multiple separate RegEx patterns to replace specific substrings in the string.

**Pros/Cons of each approach:**

1. **Filter By Function (filter1)**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable code.
		+ Leverages JavaScript's `replace()` method, which is optimized for performance.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of function calls and object creation.
2. **Filter By Strings (filter2)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster due to the direct use of RegEx patterns, which can take advantage of compiler optimizations.
	* Cons:
		+ Code is more verbose and harder to maintain, especially for larger datasets or complex patterns.

**Other considerations:**

* Both approaches rely on JavaScript's `replace()` method, which is optimized for performance. However, the specific implementation details (e.g., use of capturing groups, lazy evaluation) might impact performance.
* The benchmark only tests these two specific methods and does not account for other possible optimization techniques or variations in implementation.

**Library usage:**

None of the provided code uses any external libraries beyond JavaScript's built-in functionality.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

The `filter1` function utilizes a few advanced JavaScript features, including:

* Arrow functions (`replaceFunction`)
* Template literals (for string interpolation)
* The `trim()` and `toLowerCase()` methods for substring manipulation

These features are not essential to the benchmark's operation but contribute to the code's conciseness and readability.

**Alternatives:**

For similar benchmarks, you might consider comparing other approaches, such as:

1. Using a specialized library like RegEx or a custom implementation with native JavaScript functions (e.g., `String.prototype.replace()`).
2. Employing a different string manipulation technique, like using a Trie data structure to store and look up substrings.
3. Comparing the performance of different programming languages or environments (e.g., Node.js, WebAssembly).

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark's implementation and scope.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:62.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/62.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 62 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Filter By Function	145070.6 Ops/sec
Filter By Strings	209271.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Multiple RegExp Replacer2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Filter By Function vs Filter By Strings

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Filter By Function

Filter By Strings

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):