Benchmark: replace vs split-join

Tests:

replace
console.log("2018-10-25".replace(/-/g,""));
split-join
console.log("2018-10-25".split("-").join(""));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replace
split-join

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for replacing or splitting a string in JavaScript:

1. **replace**: Using the `replace()` method with a regular expression (`/-/g`) to replace all occurrences of the hyphen character (`-`) with an empty string (`" "`).
2. **split-join**: Splitting the string into an array using the `split()` method with the hyphen character as the separator, and then joining the resulting array back into a single string using the `join()` method.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Using `replace()` to perform the replacement operation.
* Using `split()` followed by `join()` to achieve the same result.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **replace()**
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient, as it only requires a single pass through the string.
		+ Can be more readable for simple replacements.
	* Cons:
		+ May not work correctly with non-ASCII characters or edge cases (e.g., Unicode characters).
		+ Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully (e.g., modifying the original string).
2. **split()-join**
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible, as it can handle more complex splitting and joining scenarios.
		+ Less prone to errors, as it explicitly handles edge cases.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires two separate operations (splitting and joining), which may be slower than a single pass through the string.

**Library/Functionality Used**

None of the provided benchmark code uses any external libraries or functionality beyond standard JavaScript syntax.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark. The examples are simple, straightforward expressions that demonstrate the two different approaches.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement a similar benchmark, you might consider additional options, such as:

* Using `regex.replace()` with a more complex regular expression to simulate edge cases.
* Adding noise or randomness to the input data to simulate real-world scenarios.
* Comparing performance on multiple platforms, browsers, or device types.

Keep in mind that this is just an example benchmark, and you can always adjust or modify it to suit your specific needs.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/102.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 102 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replace	236862.4 Ops/sec
split-join	222833.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

replace vs split-join (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: replace vs split-join

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

replace

split-join

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):