Benchmark: teste simple deep copy

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var MyObject = {
  description: [true, false, undefined, true]
};

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

json parse
myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject));
simple copy
const removeDeepReference = (object) => { const newObject = {}; Object.keys(object).map((key) => { newObject[key] = object[key].slice(0, object[key].length); }); return newObject; }; myCopy = removeDeepReference(MyObject)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
json parse
simple copy

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 and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two approaches to create a copy of an object: using `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject))` and a custom function `removeDeepReference`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options for creating a copy of an object:

1. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject))**: This method uses the JSON stringification and parsing algorithm to create a deep copy of the object.
2. **Custom Function: removeDeepReference**: This function manually iterates through each property of the original object, creates a new object with the same properties, and then copies the values from the original object to the new object.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject))**:
	* Pros: Simple, concise, and widely supported.
	* Cons: May not work as expected for complex objects (e.g., circular references) or objects with non-serializable values.
2. **Custom Function: removeDeepReference**:
	* Pros: Can handle more complex cases than `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject))`, such as objects with circular references.
	* Cons: More verbose, requires manual implementation of the copy logic.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library. Specifically, it uses the `lodash.min()` function to load the Lodash library.

**JavaScript Feature/Syntax Used**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that is specific to a particular browser or engine.

**Other Considerations**

When creating a copy of an object in JavaScript, it's essential to consider the following:

* **Caching**: If the original object has cached properties (e.g., `const obj = { value: 10 }; obj.cache = true;`), they will be copied as well.
* **Circular References**: If the original object contains circular references, the copy method may not work correctly.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to creating a copy of an object include:

1. **Object.assign()**: This method can be used to create a shallow copy of an object.
2. **Array.prototype.slice()**: This method can be used to create a shallow copy of an array-like object.
3. **For...in loops**: These loops can be used to manually iterate through each property of the original object and create a new object with the same properties.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not handle complex cases like circular references or non-serializable values as well as the `removeDeepReference` function.

Related benchmarks:

teste simple deep copy (version: 0)

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/structuredClone

Comparing performance of: json parse vs simple copy

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

json parse

simple copy

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):