Benchmark: Comparison between replace and split map join test2

Script Preparation code:

const defaultSubs = {
  '1': 'i', '0': 'o', '5': 's', '9': 'g', '6': 'b', '7': 't', // eslint-disable-line
  '3': 'e', '+': 't', '$': 's', '^': 'n', '|': 'i', 'А': 'a', // eslint-disable-line
  'Б': 'b', 'В': 'b', 'Г': 'r', 'Ґ': 'r', 'Д': 'a', 'Ђ': 'h', // eslint-disable-line
  'Ѓ': 'r', 'Е': 'e', 'Ё': 'e', 'Є': 'c', 'ç': 'c', 'û': 'u', // eslint-disable-line
  'Ж': 'x', 'З': 'e', 'З́': 'e', 'Ѕ': 's', 'И': 'n', 'І': 'i', // eslint-disable-line
  'Ї': 'i', 'Й': 'n', 'Ј': 'j', 'К': 'k', 'Л': 'n', 'Љ': 'b', // eslint-disable-line
  'М': 'm', 'Н': 'h', 'Њ': 'h', 'О': 'o', 'Р': 'p', 'С': 'c', // eslint-disable-line
  'С́': 'c', 'Т': 't', 'Ћ': 'h', 'Ќ': 'k', 'У': 'y', 'Ў': 'y', // eslint-disable-line
  'Ф': 'o', 'Х': 'x', 'Ц': 'u', 'Ч': 'y', 'Џ': 'u', 'Ш': 'w', // eslint-disable-line
  'Щ': 'w', 'Ъ': 'b', 'Ы': 'bl','Ь': 'b', 'Э': 'e', 'Ю': 'io', // eslint-disable-line
  'Я': 'r', 'Ӏ': 'i', 'Ә': 'b', 'Ғ': 'r', 'Ҙ': 'e', 'Ҫ': 'c', // eslint-disable-line
  'Ҡ': 'k', 'Җ': 'x', 'Қ': 'k', 'Ң': 'h', 'Ҥ': 'h', 'Ө': 'o', // eslint-disable-line
  'Ү': 'y', 'Ұ': 'y', 'Һ': 'h', 'Ҳ': 'x', 'Α': 'a', 'α': 'a', // eslint-disable-line
  'Β': 'b', 'β': 'b', 'Γ': 'r', 'γ': 'y', 'Δ': 'a', 'δ': 'o', // eslint-disable-line
  'Ε': 'e', 'ε': 'e', 'Ο': 'o', 'ο': 'o', 'Π': 'n', 'π': 'n', // eslint-disable-line
  'Ρ': 'p', 'ρ': 'p', 'Σ': 'e', 'σ': 'o', 'ς': 'c', 'Τ': 't', // eslint-disable-line
  'τ': 't', 'Υ': 'y', 'υ': 'u', 'Φ': 'o', 'φ': 'o', 'Χ': 'x', // eslint-disable-line
  'χ': 'x', 'Ψ': 'w', 'ψ': 'w', 'Ω': 'o', 'ω': 'w', '@': 'a', // eslint-disable-line
  '4': 'a'
};

function replace1(str) {
const keys = Object.keys(defaultSubs);
  let content = str
    for (let i = 0; i < keys.length; i += 1) {
      content = str.replace(keys[i], defaultSubs[keys[i]]);
    }
  return content
}

function replace2(str) {
const strArr = str.split('').map(x => defaultSubs[x] !== undefined ? defaultSubs[x] : x).join('')
return strArr
}

Tests:

Loop
replace1('@n1m4710n n199@ 61994@n1m4710n n199@ 61994@n1m4710n n199@ 61994@n1m4710n n199@ 61994@n1m4710n n199@ 61994@n1m4710n n199@ 61994@n1m4710n n199@ 61994@n1m4710n n199@ 61994@n1m4710n n199@ 61994')
split map join
replace2('@n1m4710n n199@ 61994@n1m4710n n199@ 61994@n1m4710n n199@ 61994@n1m4710n n199@ 61994@n1m4710n n199@ 61994@n1m4710n n199@ 61994@n1m4710n n199@ 61994@n1m4710n n199@ 61994@n1m4710n n199@ 61994')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Loop
split map join

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 dive into the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for replacing characters in a string: `replace1` and `replace2`. The input string contains a mix of alphabets, numbers, and special characters. The replacement mapping is defined using an object `defaultSubs`, which maps each character to its corresponding replacement.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **`replace1`**: Uses the `String.prototype.replace()` method with a loop to iterate over the keys in the `defaultSubs` object and replace each character individually.
2. **`replace2`**: Uses the `String.prototype.split()` method to split the input string into an array of characters, then uses `Array.prototype.map()` to apply the replacement mapping to each character, and finally uses `Array.prototype.join()` to join the modified characters back into a string.

**Pros and Cons**

**`replace1`:**

* Pros:
	+ Simple and straightforward implementation.
	+ Can be more efficient for small inputs since it avoids creating an array of characters.
* Cons:
	+ Requires explicit iteration over the keys in the `defaultSubs` object, which can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of the loop.

**`replace2`:**

* Pros:
	+ More concise and readable implementation.
	+ Creates an array of modified characters, which can be faster for large inputs since it avoids the overhead of individual character replacements.
* Cons:
	+ Requires creating an array of characters, which can lead to memory allocation overhead for small inputs.

**Other Considerations**

* Both implementations assume that the input string only contains ASCII characters. If the input may contain Unicode characters, additional handling may be required.
* The `replace1` implementation does not handle cases where a character in the replacement mapping is undefined or null. In such cases, the original character will remain unchanged.

**Library Usage**

None of the implementations explicitly use any libraries beyond the standard JavaScript library (e.g., `String.prototype.replace()`, `Array.prototype.split()`, `Array.prototype.map()`).

**Benchmark Result**

The latest benchmark result shows that `replace1` outperforms `replace2` in terms of executions per second, indicating that the loop-based approach is faster for this specific input. However, the difference may not be significant for all inputs or use cases.

I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Related benchmarks:

Comparison between replace and split map join test2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Loop vs split map join

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Loop

split map join

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):