Benchmark: split vs exec vs replace vs slice

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', '')
String.slice
str.slice(0, -7)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/149.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/149.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 149 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String.split	41377128.0 Ops/sec
String.match	33713112.0 Ops/sec
RegEx.exec	36291884.0 Ops/sec
String.replace	42458320.0 Ops/sec
String.slice	288664096.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark tests four different string manipulation methods: `String.split()`, `String.match()`, `RegEx.exec()`, and `String.replace()`/`String.slice()`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of each method against others. Specifically, it's comparing:

1. **String.split**: splits a string into an array of substrings.
2. **String.match**: searches for a pattern in a string and returns a match array.
3. **RegEx.exec**: executes a regular expression search on a string and returns the first match or null.
4. **String.replace**: replaces all occurrences of a pattern in a string with another value.
5. **String.slice**: extracts a section of a string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief summary of each method's strengths and weaknesses:

1. **String.split**:
	* Pros: simple, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: can be slow for large strings due to the overhead of creating an array.
2. **String.match**:
	* Pros: flexible, powerful regex capabilities, and efficient.
	* Cons: can be slower than `split()` due to regex engine complexity.
3. **RegEx.exec**:
	* Pros: fast, efficient, and suitable for single-match searches.
	* Cons: can be slow or even crash if the regex is malformed.
4. **String.replace**:
	* Pros: simple, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: may not work as expected if the pattern or replacement string is complex.

**Library Usage**

None of the methods use external libraries in this benchmark, although `RegEx.exec()` uses the built-in JavaScript regex engine.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

This benchmark doesn't explicitly mention any special JavaScript features or syntax. It focuses on comparing different string manipulation methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to these methods, consider:

1. **String.prototype.indexOf()**: finds the index of a substring.
2. **String.prototype.lastIndexOf()**: finds the last index of a substring.
3. **Array.prototype.filter()**: creates a new array with filtered elements (for `String.split()` equivalent).
4. **Array.prototype.map()**: applies a callback function to each element (for string iteration, e.g., `String.prototype.split()`).

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not offer the same performance or simplicity as the original methods.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its comparisons!

Related benchmarks:

split vs exec vs replace vs slice (version: 0)

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

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

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String.split

String.match

RegEx.exec

String.replace

String.slice

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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