Benchmark: Replace vs Repeat

Tests:

Replace
const value = "123495"; const result = value.replace(/./g, '*');
Repeat
const value = "123495"; const result = '•'.repeat(value.length);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Replace
Repeat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:131.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/131.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Replace	1386669.6 Ops/sec
Repeat	11054135.0 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 on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark is titled "Replace vs Repeat" and consists of two individual test cases: "Replace" and "Repeat". The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches in replacing a specific character with another.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we have two options being compared:

1. **`replace()` method**: This method uses a regular expression (regex) to replace all occurrences of a specified character (`/./g`) with another character (`'*'`). The regex pattern `/./g` matches any single character (`.`), and the `g` flag at the end makes it match globally, replacing all occurrences in the string.
2. **`repeat()` method**: This method uses a built-in JavaScript method to repeat a specified string (`value.length`) a certain number of times (equal to the length of the input string).

**Pros and Cons**

### Replace Method

Pros:

* It's a standard JavaScript method, widely supported across browsers.
* Can be easily extended or modified with custom regex patterns.

Cons:

* May have performance issues due to regex compilation and matching.
* Requires more computational resources compared to other methods.

### Repeat Method

Pros:

* Extremely lightweight and efficient, requiring minimal CPU resources.
* Easy to implement and understand.

Cons:

* It's a built-in method, not as flexible or customizable as the `replace()` method.
* May not work well for very large strings due to memory constraints.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library usage. Both methods rely on native JavaScript functionality.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases. The only thing worth mentioning is the use of regex patterns (`/./g`).

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to replace strings, some options include:

* Using a library like `String.prototype.replaceAll()` (although it's not as lightweight as the built-in methods).
* Implementing your own string replacement function using loops and conditional statements.
* Using a different data structure, like an array or a buffer, to store and manipulate strings.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability. The choice ultimately depends on the specific requirements of your project and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

Replace vs Repeat (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Replace vs Repeat

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Replace

Repeat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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