Benchmark: split vs exec vs replace

Script Preparation code:

str = "1875 Tokens";
re = /(\d+)\sTokens/;

Tests:

String.split
str.split(" ")[0]
String.match
str.match(re)[1]
RegEx.exec
re.exec(str)[1]
String.replace
str.replace(' Tokens', '')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String.split
String.match
RegEx.exec
String.replace

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
String.split	11222943.0 Ops/sec
String.match	7364552.0 Ops/sec
RegEx.exec	8170995.5 Ops/sec
String.replace	11633856.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different string manipulation techniques:

1. `String.split()`
2. `String.match()` (using regular expressions)
3. `String.replace()`

**Options Compared**

* `String.split()`: This method splits a string into an array of substrings based on a specified separator.
* `String.match()`: This method returns an array containing the first match, if any, in the string using a regular expression.
* `String.replace()`: This method replaces an occurrence of a pattern (in this case, a simple whitespace character) with another value.

**Pros and Cons**

* `String.split()`: Pros - efficient for separating strings by a fixed separator. Cons - may not be suitable for more complex separation logic, and it doesn't handle edge cases like null or undefined separators.
* `String.match()`: Pros - flexible and powerful for pattern matching, but can be slow if the regular expression is complex. Cons - returns an array, which might require extra processing to extract the desired value.
* `String.replace()`: Pros - simple and efficient, with a fixed replacement value. Cons - not suitable for complex replacement logic or multiple occurrences.

**Library and Syntax**

The benchmark uses JavaScript's built-in string manipulation methods, specifically:

* No external libraries are used in this benchmark.
* No special JavaScript features or syntax are required beyond what's provided by the standard library.

**Benchmark Test Cases**

Each test case measures the performance of one specific method. The individual test cases are:

1. `str.split(" ")`: Measures the time taken to split a string into an array using whitespace as the separator.
2. `str.match(re)`: Measures the time taken to extract the first match from the string using a regular expression.
3. `re.exec(str)`: Measures the time taken to execute a regular expression on the string and return a match object (in this case, only extracting the first group).
4. `str.replace(' Tokens', '')`: Measures the time taken to replace occurrences of whitespace with an empty string.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to modify or extend this benchmark, here are some alternative approaches:

* Use other regular expression flavors, like `.NET's Regex` or Perl's `regex`.
* Compare performance using more complex separation logic (e.g., `String.localeCompare()`).
* Measure the performance of other string manipulation methods, such as `String.prototype.replace()` with a callback function.
* Compare the performance of different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8 vs SpiderMonkey) by running multiple benchmark iterations.

Related benchmarks:

split vs exec vs replace (version: 0)

Test String.split vs RegEx.exec (and String.match) vs String.replace

Comparing performance of: String.split vs String.match vs RegEx.exec vs String.replace

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String.split

String.match

RegEx.exec

String.replace

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):