Benchmark: Test HOYD - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var data = [{
    name: "Roy",
    age: 17
}]

Tests:

Map
var data2 = data.map(el=>({ ...el }))
JSON
var data2 = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(data))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Map
JSON

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's being tested.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The primary goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two different approaches for transforming an array of objects in JavaScript.

**Approaches Compared:**

1. **Map Function**: The first approach uses the `map()` function, which creates a new array by applying a provided transformation function to each element of the original array.
2. **JSON Cloning**: The second approach uses `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(data))`, which clones the entire `data` object by serializing it as JSON and then parsing it back into an object.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Map Function**
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient, as it only creates a new array with references to the original elements.
		+ Easy to understand and implement.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower for very large arrays, since creating an array requires additional overhead.
2. **JSON Cloning**
	* Pros:
		+ Faster than the `map()` function for very large arrays, as it creates a new object by copying all properties.
	* Cons:
		+ More complex to implement and understand, due to the nuances of JSON serialization and deserialization.
		+ May not work correctly with objects that contain functions or other non-serializable values.

**Other Considerations:**

1. **Library Usage**: Neither approach uses a dedicated library for transformation or cloning. The `map()` function is built-in to JavaScript, while `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(data))` relies on the browser's internal JSON implementation.
2. **Special JS Features**: This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard language.

**Benchmark Preparation Code:**
The script preparation code defines two variables, `data` and `data2`, which are used to test the different approaches. The first variable is initialized with an array of objects using the `map()` function. The second variable is initialized by serializing `data` as JSON and then parsing it back into an object.

**Individual Test Cases:**
The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. **Map**: This test case uses the `map()` function to transform the original array of objects.
2. **JSON**: This test case uses the `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(data))` approach to clone the original array of objects.

**Latest Benchmark Results:**
The provided benchmark results show the execution counts per second for each browser and platform, as well as the raw UA string and other metadata. The results are likely used to determine which approach is faster in different environments.

**Other Alternatives:**

1. **Lodash's `cloneDeep()` function**: This would be a more efficient alternative to JSON cloning, but it requires including an additional library.
2. **Third-party libraries like Lo-Dash or Underscore**: These libraries provide various utility functions for array transformation and object cloning, which could be used as alternatives to the built-in `map()` and `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(data))` approaches.

Overall, this benchmark is designed to help developers understand the performance trade-offs between different JavaScript transformation approaches.

Related benchmarks:

Test HOYD (version: 0)

Test

Comparing performance of: Map vs JSON

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Map

JSON

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):