Benchmark: replace with global regexp vs replaceAll

Tests:

replace with global regexp
"i want to replace all the spaces in this string".replace(/ /g, "+");
replaceAll
"i want to replace all the spaces in this string".replaceAll(" ", "+");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replace with global regexp
replaceAll

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 14 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replace with global regexp	4165288.2 Ops/sec
replaceAll	3355050.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition Overview**

The benchmark aims to compare two different approaches for replacing spaces in a string: using a global regular expression (`/ /g`) and using the `replaceAll` method from a library. The script preparation code is empty, which means that the JavaScript engine will execute the provided script directly. There's no HTML preparation code specified either.

**What's being tested?**

In this benchmark, two different approaches are compared:

1. **Global regular expression (`/ /g`)**: This approach uses a regular expression to match all spaces in the input string and replaces them with an empty string.
2. **Library-based `replaceAll` method**: This approach uses the `replaceAll` method from a library ( likely a built-in JavaScript function or a third-party library) to replace all occurrences of spaces in the input string.

**Options being compared**

The two approaches have different pros and cons:

1. **Global regular expression (`/ /g`)**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: Can be error-prone if not properly escaped, and may not work as expected with complex regex patterns.
2. **Library-based `replaceAll` method**:
	* Pros: More readable, safer (as it uses the built-in function), and easier to maintain than using a global regular expression.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of calling an external library.

**Libraries being used**

In this benchmark, two libraries are not explicitly mentioned, but we can infer that:

1. The `replaceAll` method is likely a built-in JavaScript function (`String.prototype.replaceAll` or its alias, `String.prototype.replaceAll`).
2. The global regular expression (`/ /g`) uses the browser's internal regex engine.

**Other considerations**

When testing this benchmark, consider the following factors:

* Browser version: Different browsers may have varying performance and behavior for both approaches.
* Input string size: Larger input strings can affect performance due to increased memory allocation and processing time.
* Platform: The test environment should be consistent across different devices (e.g., desktop vs. mobile) and platforms.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches that could be considered for this benchmark include:

1. Using a third-party library like `lodash` or `underscore`, which offer optimized string replacement functions.
2. Implementing the replacement logic in native JavaScript, avoiding built-in library calls.
3. Comparing performance with other string replacement methods, such as using a loop to iterate over the input string.

Keep in mind that the specific alternatives will depend on the goals of the benchmark and the desired level of complexity.

Related benchmarks:

replace with global regexp vs replaceAll (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: replace with global regexp vs replaceAll

Created: 11 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

replace with global regexp

replaceAll

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):