Benchmark: Character removal

Script Preparation code:

var str = "this is a string with speciål chäräcters to remöve";
var badchars = ['å', 'ä', 'ö'];

function removeChars1 (str, badchars) {
  return str.split("").filter((chr) => badchars.indexOf(chr) === -1).join("");
}

function removeChars2 (str, badchars) {
  return str.replace( new RegExp("(" + badchars.join('|') + ")", "g"), "" );
}

Tests:

Using split + filter + join
var final = removeChars1(str, badchars);
Using RegExp global replace
var final = removeChars2(str, badchars);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Using split + filter + join
Using RegExp global replace

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 benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark compares two approaches to remove characters from a string:

1. **Using `split()`, `filter()`, and `join()`**: This approach splits the input string into an array of substrings using spaces as separators, filters out the elements that contain characters in the `badchars` array, and then joins them back together without any separator.
2. **Using `RegExp` global replace**: This approach uses a regular expression to match all occurrences of characters in the `badchars` array and replaces them with an empty string.

**Options Compared**

The two options are compared in terms of performance, specifically:

* How many executions per second can each option handle on a given machine.
* Which option is faster for removing a set of characters from a string.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Using `split()`, `filter()`, and `join()`**:
	* Pros: This approach is more explicit, readable, and easy to understand, especially for developers familiar with array operations in JavaScript.
	* Cons: It can be slower due to the overhead of creating an array, filtering it, and joining it back together. Additionally, it requires more memory allocation and garbage collection.
2. **Using `RegExp` global replace**:
	* Pros: This approach is often faster because regular expressions are optimized for performance in JavaScript engines. It also uses less memory and avoids the overhead of creating an array.
	* Cons: The code can be harder to read and understand, especially for developers unfamiliar with regular expressions.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, `RegExp` is used as a built-in library in JavaScript. Regular expressions are a powerful pattern-matching system that allows you to search for patterns in strings and extract or modify data based on those patterns.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None of the options use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's standard in modern JavaScript implementations.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 68 on Mac OS X 10.14

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Using split + filter + join	521589.6 Ops/sec
Using RegExp global replace	1644389.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Character removal (version: 0)

Two approaches to remove characters from a string

Comparing performance of: Using split + filter + join vs Using RegExp global replace

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Using split + filter + join

Using RegExp global replace

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):