Benchmark: replace vs replaceAll v3000

Tests:

regex
"this is it".replace(/ /g, "+");
replaceAll
"this is it".replaceAll(" ", "+");

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 10 community runs

Desktop Results:

Firefox 5 runs

replaceAll

28.5M/s

regex

16.3M/s

Fastest: replaceAll (1.7x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ replaceAll: 28,532,322 ops/sec
• regex: 16,331,788 ops/sec

Chrome 5 runs

regex

12.3M/s

replaceAll

9.9M/s

Fastest: regex (1.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ regex: 12,260,242 ops/sec
• replaceAll: 9,919,049 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regex
replaceAll

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:140.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/140.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 140 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

replaceAll

28.7M/s

regex

16.5M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ replaceAll	28,705,628 Ops/sec
regex	16,549,547 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.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases:

1. `replace`: This test case measures the performance difference between using the native `String.prototype.replace()` method and a custom implementation that replaces spaces with double quotes.
2. `replaceAll`: This test case measures the performance of replacing spaces with double quotes using the `String.prototype.replaceAll()` method.

**Options compared**

In each test case, only two options are being compared:

* Native `replace()` (or `replaceAll()`)
* Custom replacement function

These options represent different approaches to achieve the same result: replacing spaces in a string with double quotes.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Native `replace()` (or `replaceAll()`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Efficient, optimized for performance by the JavaScript engine.
		+ Familiar API for developers, reducing learning curve.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be directly comparable to custom implementations without considering specific browser optimizations or differences in execution plan.
2. **Custom replacement function**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides insight into the custom implementation's performance and potential bottlenecks.
		+ Can help identify areas for optimization or improvement in the custom code.
	* Cons:
		+ May be less efficient due to overhead from custom logic, caching, or other factors.

**Library usage**

In both test cases, no external libraries are used. However, if we were to compare a library implementation (e.g., `String.prototype.replace()` vs. a library-specific function), it would depend on the specific library and its implementation details.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in these test cases. The focus is solely on comparing two basic string replacement approaches.

**Alternatives**

If you want to explore other alternatives, here are some possibilities:

* Using regular expressions with specific flags (e.g., `String.prototype.replace()` vs. `String.prototype.replace(/\s+/g, '+')`)
* Implementing a custom regex engine or library
* Using alternative string replacement methods, such as `Array.prototype.map()`
* Optimizing the custom implementation using caching, memoization, or other techniques

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require additional test cases and considerations to accurately compare their performance.

In conclusion, these two test cases measure the performance difference between native `replace()` (or `replaceAll()`) and a custom replacement function. By comparing these options, we can gain insight into the efficiency of each approach and identify potential bottlenecks in our own code.

replace vs replaceAll v3000 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `regex vs replaceAll`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

regex

replaceAll

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 10 community runs

Desktop Results:

Firefox 5 runs

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

replace vs replaceAll v3000 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: regex vs replaceAll

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

regex

replaceAll

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 10 community runs

Desktop Results:

Firefox 5 runs

Chrome 5 runs

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: `regex vs replaceAll`