Benchmark: split & replace - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var str = "AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:FF";

Tests:

use split
let afterStr = str.split(":").join("");
use replace
let afterStr = str.replace(/\:/g, "");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
use split
use replace

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 136 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

use split

12.8M/s

use replace

11.0M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ use split	12,750,728 Ops/sec
use replace	11,019,105 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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and what are the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined in JSON format, which represents two test cases:

1. **Split & Replace**: This test case uses a string `str` with multiple parts separated by colons (`:`) to create an array.
2. **Use Split**: This test case splits the same string `str` into an array using the `split()` method with a separator of two colons (`:**`).
3. **Use Replace**: This test case uses the `replace()` method with a regular expression to replace all occurrences of a specific pattern in the string `str`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of three approaches:

1. **Split**: Using the `split()` method to split the string into an array.
2. **Replace**: Using the `replace()` method with a regular expression to replace all occurrences of a specific pattern in the string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

*   **Split**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Can be used for more complex string operations, like splitting on multiple delimiters or trimming whitespace.
        *   Less prone to catastrophic backtracking issues when dealing with long strings or complex patterns.
    *   Cons:
        *   Can be slower than `replace()` for simple cases due to the overhead of creating an array and iterating over it.
        *   May not be as efficient for very large strings, since `split()` creates an array in memory.
*   **Replace**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Faster than `split()` for simple string replacement tasks, especially when dealing with small to medium-sized input strings.
        *   More efficient for replacing multiple occurrences of a pattern without creating intermediate arrays.
    *   Cons:
        *   May not be suitable for more complex string operations due to the limitations in regular expression patterns.
        *   Can be slower than `split()` for very large strings, since it needs to scan the entire input string.

**Library and Purpose**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the use of the `split()` method implies that the JavaScript engine uses a built-in function or a standard library like Lodash.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the provided benchmark test cases utilize special JavaScript features or syntax beyond basic string operations and regular expressions.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternatives to these approaches could include:

*   **Substitution**: Instead of splitting or replacing strings, you can use substitution methods that replace entire substrings with new ones. This approach might be more efficient for specific use cases.
*   **Array-based processing**: If the input string needs to be processed in chunks, using an array-based approach like `reduce()` could be a viable alternative.

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of two common JavaScript string manipulation techniques: splitting and replacing strings. The choice between these approaches depends on the specific requirements of your use case, such as complexity, data size, and potential performance considerations.

split & replace (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `use split vs use replace`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

use split

use replace

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

split & replace (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: use split vs use replace

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

use split

use replace

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: `use split vs use replace`