Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
replaceAll vs regex replace compiled
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
replace regex vs replace All
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
replace regex
"this is it".replace(new RegExp(" ", 'g'), "+");
replace All
"this is it".replaceAll(" ", "+");
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
replace regex
replace All
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 122 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=512695" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
replace All
6.8M/s
replace regex
3.1M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
replace All
6,783,940 Ops/sec
replace regex
3,054,130 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches for replacing whitespace characters with a plus sign in a string: 1. Using `String.prototype.replace()` method with a regular expression (regex) pattern (`" \", 'g'`) to replace all occurrences of one or more whitespace characters. 2. Using the `replaceAll()` method, which is not a standard JavaScript method. Instead, it's likely a custom implementation. Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach: **Using `String.prototype.replace()` with regex:** Pros: * This method is widely supported by most modern browsers and Node.js versions. * It allows for more complex pattern matching, such as escaping special characters. * The performance should be similar across different browsers. Cons: * Requires defining a regular expression pattern, which can be error-prone if not done correctly. * May incur overhead due to the need to parse the regex pattern. **Using `replaceAll()` (custom implementation):** Pros: * May provide better performance due to optimized code and potentially reduced overhead. * Eliminates the need to define a regex pattern, making it easier to use. Cons: * This method is not widely supported by browsers or Node.js versions. It may only work in specific environments or with custom implementations. * Performance results might vary across different browsers and platforms. Other considerations: * Both approaches replace all whitespace characters (`\s`) with a plus sign (`+`). * The test case uses `const` for string literals, which is a modern JavaScript feature (introduced in ES6). Now, let's take a look at the library used in this benchmark: **none**. There are no external libraries mentioned in the provided JSON. Regarding special JS features or syntax: * As mentioned earlier, the test case uses `const` for string literals, which is a modern JavaScript feature (introduced in ES6). If you're interested in exploring other alternatives or optimizations, here are some options to consider: 1. **Use a more efficient regex pattern**: For example, using `\s+` instead of `" \", 'g'`. 2. **Leverage browser-specific optimizations**: Some browsers may optimize string replacements using `replaceAll()` or similar methods. 3. **Experiment with different implementation details**: Adjusting the implementation of `replaceAll()` or other custom methods to optimize performance. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be supported by all browsers or environments, so it's essential to test and verify their results before making any optimizations.
Related benchmarks
replaceAll vs regex replace (no prep code)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?