Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
r v s bench3
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
regex replace all vs split filter join
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
regex replace all
const term1 = 'The quick brown fox The quick brown fox The quick brown fox The quick brown fox'; const regex = /[ ]{2,}/gi; const term2 = term1.replaceAll(regex, " ");
split filter join
const term1 = 'The quick brown fox The quick brown fox The quick brown fox The quick brown fox'; const term2 = term1.split(' ').filter(el => el.length > 1).join(' ');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
regex replace all
split filter join
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of different approaches. **Benchmark Overview** The provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two JavaScript approaches: 1. **Split, Filter, Join**: This approach involves splitting a string into an array of words using `split()`, filtering out empty strings using `filter()`, and then joining the remaining words back into a single string using `join()`. 2. **Regular Expression Replace All**: This approach uses a regular expression to replace all occurrences of two or more whitespace characters with a single space. **What's Being Tested** The benchmark is testing which approach performs better in terms of execution speed, measured in executions per second (EPS). **Options Compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **Split, Filter, Join**: This approach uses native JavaScript methods (`split()`, `filter()`, and `join()`). 2. **Regular Expression Replace All**: This approach uses a regular expression to achieve the same result. **Pros/Cons of Each Approach** **Split, Filter, Join** Pros: * Native JavaScript methods are generally fast and efficient. * Code is concise and easy to read. Cons: * Requires multiple function calls, which can lead to overhead. * May not be suitable for very large datasets due to memory allocation and garbage collection. **Regular Expression Replace All** Pros: * Can handle large datasets efficiently by using a single operation with the regular expression engine. * Allows for more complex pattern matching and replacement. Cons: * Regular expressions can be slower and more complex than native JavaScript methods. * Code may be harder to read and maintain due to the complexity of regular expressions. **Library Used** None is explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, the use of `replaceAll()` suggests that the JavaScript engine might be using a library like jQuery UI's `text()` method, which provides an optimized implementation of string manipulation methods. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** The use of `\r\n` and `\x20` escape sequences in the benchmark definition suggests that the test is running on a Windows platform. The `\x20` code point represents a space character (U+0020), which might be used to ensure consistent whitespace handling across platforms. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to test alternative approaches, some options could include: 1. Using a library like Lodash or Ramda for string manipulation. 2. Employing a different regular expression engine, such as PCRE (Perl-Compatible Regular Expressions). 3. Optimizing the Split, Filter, Join approach by using a more efficient data structure, like a trie. Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark definition and test cases to ensure accurate results.
Related benchmarks:
testoffors
test obj vs for
sma - reduce - doc - new
sma - doc or new
for-in Object.hasOwn vs for-of Object.keys
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?