Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
extend test comparaison
(version: 0)
extend test comparaison
Comparing performance of:
without true vs with true
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.2.3.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
var obj1 = {"a": 1, "b": {"a": 1, "b": {"a": 1, "b": {"a": 1, "b": 1}}}}
Tests:
without true
var obj2 = $.extend({}, obj1)
with true
var obj3 = $.extend(true, {}, obj1)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
without true
with true
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'd be happy to help you understand the benchmark being tested on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark tests two different approaches for extending objects in JavaScript using the jQuery `extend()` method. **Options Compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **Without true**: This option uses the original implementation of the `$.extend()` method, which does not perform a deep copy of the object by default. 2. **With true**: This option uses the `true` flag with the `$.extend()` method, which performs a deep copy of the object. **Pros and Cons** ### Without true * **Pros**: + Faster execution times since it doesn't perform a deep copy of the object. + May be more suitable for large objects or complex data structures where a shallow copy is sufficient. * **Cons**: + Does not provide a true copy of the original object, which may lead to unexpected behavior when modifying the extended object. + May cause issues if the extended object needs to be modified independently. ### With true * **Pros**: + Provides a true copy of the original object, ensuring that modifications made to the extended object do not affect the original. + Ensures predictable behavior when working with complex data structures or large objects. * **Cons**: + Slower execution times since it performs a deep copy of the object. + May be overkill for simple object extensions where a shallow copy is sufficient. **Library and Purpose** The jQuery library is being used in this benchmark, specifically the `$.extend()` method. The purpose of this method is to merge two or more objects into one, creating a new object with the combined properties. In the context of this benchmark, `$.extend()` is being tested for its performance and behavior when extending objects, including whether it performs a deep copy (with `true`) or a shallow copy (without `true`). **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being used in this benchmark. **Other Considerations** When working with object extensions, it's essential to consider the following: * Whether you need a true copy of the original object for predictable behavior and independence. * The size and complexity of the objects being extended; deeper copies may be necessary for larger or more complex data structures. * Performance considerations; shallow copies can be faster but may lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for extending objects in JavaScript include: * Using the `Object.assign()` method, which performs a shallow copy of the object. * Implementing a custom merge function using recursion or iteration. * Using a library like Lodash, which provides a `merge` function that can perform both shallow and deep copies. Keep in mind that each approach has its pros and cons, and the choice ultimately depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.
Related benchmarks:
assign vs comparea
typeof first or second
Object spread
equals
instanceof vs number
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?