Benchmark: Comparing performance of: split + join vs replace vs replaceAll

Script Preparation code:

var example = 'Agreement Change Id'

Tests:

split + join
var result = example.split(/\s/g).join('_');
replace
var result = example.replace(/\s/g, '_')
replace all
var result = example.replaceAll(/\s/g, '_')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split + join
replace
replace all

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 22 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/151.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/151.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 151 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

replace

8.5M/s

replace all

5.2M/s

split + join

4.4M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ replace	8,544,298 Ops/sec
replace all	5,155,259 Ops/sec
split + join	4,377,089 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition and Purpose**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different approaches for replacing or splitting strings in JavaScript:

1. `split + join`: This approach involves using the `split()` method to split a string into an array, modifying the separator, and then joining the elements back together using the `join()` method.
2. `replace`: This approach uses the `replace()` method with a regular expression (regex) to replace specific characters in the original string.
3. `replaceAll` (not a built-in JavaScript method): This is actually a typo and should be `replaceAll` or `String.prototype.replaceAll()`. The purpose of this test is to compare its performance with the built-in `replace()` method.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the following options:

1. **Split + Join**: This approach can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of creating an array and joining its elements.
2. **Replace**: This approach uses a regex to replace characters, which can be faster than manual string manipulation but may be slower for very large strings.
3. **replaceAll** (assuming it's meant to be `replaceAll`): This is likely to perform similarly to the built-in `replace()` method.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Split + Join**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand and implement, can handle variable separator lengths.
	* Cons: May lead to slower performance due to array creation and joining.
2. **Replace**:
	* Pros: Fast for simple replacements, doesn't require creating an array.
	* Cons: May not work well with complex regex patterns or very large strings.
3. **replaceAll** (assuming it's meant to be `replaceAll`):
	* Pros: Similar performance to `replace()`, might be faster due to optimized implementation.
	* Cons: Not a built-in JavaScript method, may not work in older browsers.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

There is no library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, if you're using a browser, it's likely that MeasureThat.net runs on top of a modern JavaScript engine like V8 (Google Chrome) or SpiderMonkey (Firefox).

The `replaceAll` method is not a built-in JavaScript feature, but rather an extension provided by some browsers, such as Internet Explorer.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to the benchmarked approaches:

1. **Using a string replacement library**: Libraries like regexjs or String-Patterns can provide faster and more efficient string manipulation functions.
2. **Using a custom implementation**: Writing your own optimized string manipulation function can be more efficient than using built-in methods.

In summary, the benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different approaches for replacing or splitting strings in JavaScript. While each approach has its pros and cons, the `replaceAll` method (assuming it's meant to be `replaceAll`) might offer similar performance to the built-in `replace()` method and could be a viable alternative.

Comparing performance of: split + join vs replace vs replaceAll (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: split + join vs replace vs replaceAll

Comparing performance of: `split + join vs replace vs replace all`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

split + join

replace

replace all

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Comparing performance of: split + join vs replace vs replaceAll (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: split + join vs replace vs replaceAll

Comparing performance of: split + join vs replace vs replace all

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

split + join

replace

replace all

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `split + join vs replace vs replace all`