Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Uppercase
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Split vs replace
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Split
"lorem ipsum".split('').map((char, index) => index % 2 ? char.toUpperCase() : char).join('');
replace
"lorem ipsum".replace(/(.)(.)/g, (substring, m1, m2) => { return m1 + m2.toUpperCase(); });
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Split
replace
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases. **What is being tested?** The primary purpose of this benchmark is to measure the performance difference between two JavaScript functions: `split()` and `replace()`. The tests are designed to process a string containing the Latin phrase "lorem ipsum". **Options compared:** There are two options being compared: 1. **`split()`**: This method splits a string into an array of substrings based on a specified separator (in this case, no separator is provided, so it defaults to splitting on whitespace). The `map()` function is then used to apply a transformation to each substring. 2. **`replace()`**: This method replaces all occurrences of a pattern in a string with a replacement value. **Pros and Cons:** **`split()`** Pros: * Easy to understand and implement * Fast, as it only requires iterating over the characters of the input string Cons: * May be slower than `replace()` for large input strings due to the overhead of creating an array from the split substrings * Requires more memory, as a new array needs to be created **`replace()`** Pros: * Can be faster and more efficient for large input strings, as it only requires searching for patterns in the string * Does not require creating a temporary array Cons: * May have a higher overhead due to the complexity of regular expression matching * Less straightforward to understand and implement than `split()` **Library and purpose:** In the provided benchmark definition, there is no explicit mention of any JavaScript library. However, it's worth noting that the use of `.map()` in both test cases implies that a modern JavaScript environment (likely with a recent version of ECMAScript) is being used. **Special JS feature or syntax:** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two built-in methods (`split()` and `replace()`) for performance purposes. **Other alternatives:** If you want to test alternative approaches, here are a few possibilities: 1. Using a custom implementation of the `.split()` method (e.g., using a simple loop instead of the Array.prototype implementation) 2. Using a regular expression with the `g` flag (instead of the string-based matching in the `replace()` example)
Related benchmarks:
Capitalize
Capitalize
js lowercase vs uppercase
Lodash vs Native Uppercase first letter1
toUpperCase vs toLowerCase - true
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?