Benchmark: replace vs splitjoin

Script Preparation code:

var str='Стэн против сил зла (2 сезон 1-8 серия из 8) (2017) WEB-DL 720p | Newstudio [AVC]';
var e = function (str) {
                    if (str) return str.
                        replace(/&/g, '&amp;').
                        replace(/</g, '&lt;').
                        replace(/>/g, '&gt;').
                        replace(/"/g, '&quot;').
                        replace(/'/g, '&#039;');
                    return '';
                };
var e2 = function (str) {
                    if (str) return str
                      .split('&').join('&amp;')
                      .split('<').join('&lt;')
                      .split('>').join('&gt;')
                      .split('"').join('&quot;')
                      .split("'").join('&#039;');
                    return '';
                };

Tests:

a
e(str);
b
e2(str);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
a
b

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a microbenchmark test case on the MeasureThat.net website, specifically designed to compare the performance of two JavaScript functions: `e(str)` and `e2(str)`. The benchmark aims to measure the time taken by each function to replace special characters in a given string.

**What is tested?**

Two options are compared:

1. **`replace` method**: This approach uses the built-in `String.prototype.replace()` method, which is a standard JavaScript API for replacing substrings.
2. **`split` and `join` methods**: This alternative approach uses two separate `split()` and `join()` methods to replace special characters.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **`replace` method**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable code.
		+ Typically faster and more efficient, as it's optimized for this specific use case.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as flexible or customizable as the `split` and `join` approach.
2. **`split` and `join` methods**:
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible and customizable, as each character can be replaced independently.
		+ Can handle edge cases more effectively, such as multiple consecutive occurrences of a character.
	* Cons:
		+ Generally slower and less efficient than the `replace` method, due to the additional function calls.

**Library usage**

The benchmark uses the built-in JavaScript functions, which are part of the ECMAScript standard. No external libraries are required or used in this test case.

**Special JS features/syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided code. However, it's worth noting that the `replace()` method is a part of the ECMAScript 5 standard, and its usage might be limited by older browsers or environments.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to consider alternative approaches for replacing special characters in a string:

* **Regular expressions**: You could use regular expressions (e.g., `/&/g`, `/</g`, etc.) as an alternative to the `replace()` method. This approach would provide more flexibility and customization options but might be slower and less efficient.
* **Template literals**: If you're using modern JavaScript environments, you could consider using template literals (e.g., `${'&'}`) as a concise way to replace special characters.

Keep in mind that these alternatives are not necessarily equivalent in performance or readability to the original `replace()` method.

Related benchmarks:

replace vs splitjoin (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: a vs b

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

a

b

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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