Benchmark: structuredClone performance in daily objects

Script Preparation code:

var testObject = {
  myString: 'Hello world! Hello world! Hello world! Hello world! Hello world! Hello world! Hello world! ',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
  myNull: null,
  myObject: {
    stringify: 'JSON.stringify() method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string....',
    parse: 'JSON.parse() method parses a JSON string...'
  },
  myArray: [
  	'hello world',
    123456789,
    true,
    null,
    { hello: 'world' },
    [{ hello: 'world' }, 1221, 1212, 'fdsaf', '3232', 'fdsaf', 'fdsa']
  ],
};

function deepClone(val) {
  if (typeof val !== 'object' || val === null) return val;

  if (Array.isArray(val)) {
    return val.map(item => deepClone(item));
  }

  const obj = {};
  for (const key in val) {
    obj[key] = deepClone(val[key]);
  }
  return obj;
}

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

structuredClone
myCopy = structuredClone(testObject)
daily deepclone
myCopy = deepClone(testObject)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
structuredClone
daily deepclone

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 provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of two different cloning functions: `structuredClone` and a custom implementation called `deepClone`.

*   The **test object** (`testObject`) contains various types of data, including strings, numbers, booleans, null, objects, and arrays. This allows the benchmark to evaluate the performance of both cloning functions on different types of data.
*   The `structuredClone` function is a built-in JavaScript method introduced in ECMAScript 2020 (ES2020). It's designed to create a deep clone of an object, preserving all its properties and relationships.
*   The custom `deepClone` function is implemented by the test author. This implementation also creates a deep clone of the input object but uses a recursive approach.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1.  **structuredClone**: This test case measures the performance of the built-in `structuredClone` function on the `testObject`.
2.  **daily deepclone**: This test case measures the performance of the custom `deepClone` function implemented by the test author.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two different approaches:

*   **structuredClone (built-in)**: The official JavaScript method for creating a deep clone of an object.
*   **custom deepClone**: A manually implemented recursive cloning function.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Structured Clone (Built-in)**

Pros:

*   **Efficient**: Built-in functions are typically optimized for performance, making them a good choice when possible.
*   **Easy to Use**: You don't need to write any custom code; it's straightforward to use.

Cons:

*   **Platform Dependence**: The `structuredClone` function may not work in older browsers or environments that don't support it.
*   **Compatibility Issues**: Depending on the specific implementation, `structuredClone` might behave differently than expected, especially when dealing with complex objects and relationships.

**Custom Deep Clone**

Pros:

*   **Control**: You have full control over the cloning process, allowing for customization to suit your specific needs.
*   **Flexibility**: This approach can handle edge cases or non-standard data formats more easily than built-in methods.

Cons:

*   **Code Complexity**: Implementing a deep clone by hand can be error-prone and harder to maintain.
*   **Performance Overhead**: Manual implementations might incur additional computational overhead compared to using built-in functions.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

*   **Maintenance**: How often will you update your cloning function? If it's rarely needed or updated, a custom implementation might be unnecessary.
*   **Data Complexity**: Are you dealing with complex objects or data formats that require special handling?
*   **Performance Requirements**: Is speed critical for your application?

**Library Usage**

In the provided benchmark definition, there is no explicit library usage mentioned. However, the `structuredClone` function itself relies on various libraries and internal implementations to provide its functionality.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax explicitly used in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

structuredClone performance in daily objects (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: structuredClone vs daily deepclone

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

structuredClone

daily deepclone

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):