Benchmark: replace vs replaceAll Global

Tests:

replace
const test = 'test test test test'; const result = test.replace(/test/g, 'hello');
replaceAll
const test = 'test test test test'; const result = test.replaceAll('test', 'hello');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replace
replaceAll

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 18 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 YaBrowser/25.2.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Yandex Browser 25 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replace	2301135.0 Ops/sec
replaceAll	2203497.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's tested in the provided benchmark.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two string replacement methods: `replace()` and `replaceAll()`. These methods are used to replace all occurrences of a pattern in a string with another value.

**Options Compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. **`replace()`**: This method replaces the first occurrence of a pattern in a string with another value.
2. **`replaceAll()`**: This method replaces all occurrences of a pattern in a string with another value.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **`replace()`**:
	+ Pros: Can be more efficient if only one replacement is needed, as it doesn't have to scan the entire string multiple times.
	+ Cons: Fails if there are no matches, and returns `undefined` if the pattern is not found. Also, it's not designed for replacing all occurrences of a pattern.
* **`replaceAll()`**:
	+ Pros: Replaces all occurrences of a pattern in a string, making it more suitable for cases where multiple replacements are needed.
	+ Cons: May be less efficient than `replace()`, especially if only one replacement is needed, as it has to scan the entire string multiple times.

**Library Usage**

There's no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark. However, it's worth noting that both `replace()` and `replaceAll()` methods are built-in methods of the JavaScript String prototype.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark. It only uses standard JavaScript syntax.

**Other Considerations**

To ensure accurate results, it's essential to consider the following:

* The input string size and complexity can impact performance.
* The pattern being replaced can affect performance, especially if it's complex or contains many repetitions.
* The replacement value should be carefully chosen to avoid unnecessary allocations or operations.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches for replacing strings in JavaScript include:

* Using a third-party library like [Sieve.js](https://github.com/mattias-lundberg/sieve), which provides more efficient string manipulation methods, including regular expressions.
* Implementing custom replacement logic using loops and conditional statements.
* Utilizing WebAssembly (WASM) or other just-in-time (JIT) compilation options to optimize performance.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative approach depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

replace vs replaceAll Global (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: replace vs replaceAll

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

replace

replaceAll

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):