Is StringBuilder.Replace() more efficient than String.Replace?

.net string stringbuilder
Jim picture Jim · Nov 13, 2008 · Viewed 13k times · Source

If you have to use String.Replace() to replace test 50 times, you essentially have to create a new string 50 times. Does StringBuilder.Replace() do this more efficiently? E.g., should I use a StringBuilder if I'm going to be replacing a lot of text, even while I won't be appending any data to it?

I'm using .NET, but I assume this would be the same as Java and possibly other languages.

Answer

Michael Burr picture Michael Burr · Nov 13, 2008

This is exactly the type of thing StringBuilder is for - repeated modification of the same text object - it's not just for repeated concatenation, though that appears to be what it's used for most commonly.

Related questions

How to use StringBuilder wisely?

I am little confused about using StringBuilder class, first: A string object concatenation operation always creates a new object from the existing string and the new data. A StringBuilder object maintains a buffer to accommodate the concatenation of new data. …

Read More
String.Join vs. StringBuilder: which is faster?

In a previous question about formatting a double[][] to CSV format, it was suggested that using StringBuilder would be faster than String.Join. Is this true?

Read More
How the StringBuilder class is implemented? Does it internally create new string objects each time we append?

How the StringBuilder class is implemented? Does it internally create new string objects each time we append?

Read More