Benchmark: Split and join vs split/join regex replace

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'really rare  [TL_HIDDEN] (Phone number hidden by company) (Email hidden by company) [EMAIL_HIDDEN]';

Tests:

Split and regex replace
str.split('(Phone number hidden by company)') .join('') .split('(Email hidden by company)') .join('').replace(/(\[TL_HIDDEN\])|(\[EMAIL_HIDDEN\])/g, "");
Multiple Split and Join
str.split('(Phone number hidden by company)') .join('') .split('(Email hidden by company)') .join('') .split('[TL_HIDDEN]') .join('') .split('[EMAIL_HIDDEN]') .join('');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Split and regex replace
Multiple Split and 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 break down the benchmark test.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to process a specific string:

1. **Split and join**: This approach involves splitting the string into substrings using parentheses as delimiters, then joining them back together without any separator, and finally removing certain hidden parts by regular expression replacement.
2. **Split/join regex replace**: This approach is similar to the first one but uses regular expressions to remove the hidden parts directly.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches:

1. Splitting the string into substrings using parentheses as delimiters, joining them back together without any separator (`str.split('(Phone number hidden by company)')\r\n.join('')`), and then further splitting and joining to remove the hidden parts.
2. Using regular expressions to remove the hidden parts directly.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. **Split and join**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand, uses built-in string methods, might be faster for simple cases.
	* Cons: Can lead to performance issues when dealing with large strings or complex replacements, may not be efficient for regular expression patterns.
2. **Split/join regex replace**:
	* Pros: More flexible and powerful for handling complex regular expressions, can be more efficient for large strings.
	* Cons: May require additional setup and understanding of regular expressions, can lead to performance issues if not implemented correctly.

**Library usage**

The benchmark uses the `replace()` method with a regular expression pattern. This suggests that the JavaScript engine being tested is capable of executing regular expressions efficiently.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes mentioned in the test cases, so we can consider them to be standard JavaScript code.

**Other alternatives**

While not explicitly mentioned in this benchmark, other approaches could include:

* Using a library like regex-escape or String.prototype.escape() to escape and remove hidden parts before processing.
* Implementing custom parsing logic using a parser generator tool like ANTLR.
* Utilizing the `Intl` API for internationalized string manipulation.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The script preparation code is simple, creating a sample string with hidden phone number and email addresses. The HTML preparation code is empty, suggesting that this benchmark only focuses on JavaScript performance and does not require any specific web page rendering or layout considerations.

Overall, this benchmark test evaluates the performance of different approaches to processing strings with embedded data using JavaScript's built-in methods and regular expressions.

Related benchmarks:

Split and join vs split/join regex replace (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Split and regex replace vs Multiple Split and Join

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Split and regex replace

Multiple Split and 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):