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 '';
                };
var e3 = function (str) {
                    if (str) return str.
                        replace('&', '&amp;').
                        replace('<', '&lt;').
                        replace('>', '&gt;').
                        replace('"', '&quot;').
                        replace("'", '&#039;');
                    return '';
                };

Tests:

a
e(str);
b
e2(str);
c
e3(str);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
a
b
c

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.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark is comparing three different approaches to escape HTML special characters from a string:

1. **`e(str);`**: This function uses multiple `replace()` methods to escape the special characters (&, <, >, ", and ').
2. **`e2(str);`**: This function uses `split()` and `join()` methods to achieve similar escaping.
3. **`e3(str);`**: This function uses single `replace()` calls with different escape sequences for each character.

**Options being compared**

The three options are:

* **Multiple `replace()` calls**: `e(str);`
* **Split-and-join approach**: `e2(str);`
* **Single `replace()` call with multiple escape sequences**: `e3(str);`

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Multiple `replace()` calls (e(str));**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and easy to understand.
		+ May be faster due to fewer function calls.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower if the replacement process is computationally expensive.
		+ May require more memory for storing temporary results.
2. **Split-and-join approach (e2(str));**:
	* Pros:
		+ Efficient in terms of memory usage, as it only requires a single array to store intermediate results.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of string splitting and joining operations.
		+ Requires more cognitive effort to understand and implement.
3. **Single `replace()` call with multiple escape sequences (e3(str));**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and easy to understand, similar to `e(str);`.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the need for additional function calls.

**Library usage**

None of the provided functions rely on external libraries. The `split()` and `join()` methods are built-in JavaScript string manipulation functions.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in these benchmark tests. They only utilize standard JavaScript functions (replace(), split(), join()).

**Other alternatives**

If the benchmark were to test more complex escaping scenarios, alternative approaches might include:

* Using a dedicated HTML escaping library (e.g., `DOMPurify`) for better performance and accuracy.
* Utilizing regular expressions to achieve faster and more efficient escaping.
* Implementing a custom escape function using Unicode character codes.

However, these alternatives would likely introduce additional complexity and may not be as straightforward to implement as the three approaches being compared in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

replace vs splitjoin (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: a vs b vs c

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

a

b

c

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):