Benchmark: object clone - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

spread
const food = {beef: '🥩', bacon: '🥓'}; const cloneFood = {...food}; console.log(cloneFood);
assign
const food = {beef: '🥩', bacon: '🥓'}; const cloneFood = Object.assign({}, food); console.log(cloneFood);
json
const food = {beef: '🥩', bacon: '🥓'}; const cloneFood = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(food)); console.log(cloneFood);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
spread
assign
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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided benchmark definition is empty, but it seems to be expecting some information about the test case. Typically, this section would contain metadata about the test, such as its name, description, script preparation code, and HTML preparation code. Since these are missing in your example, I'll focus on explaining the individual test cases.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **"spread"**
The benchmark definition for this test case is:
```javascript
const food = {beef: '🥩', bacon: '🥓'};
const cloneFood = {...food};
console.log(cloneFood);
```
This test case measures the performance of cloning an object using the spread operator (`{...}`).

**Pros and Cons of Spread Operator Approach**

The use of the spread operator to clone an object is a popular approach in modern JavaScript. Here are some pros and cons:

Pros:

* It's concise and easy to read.
* It creates a shallow copy of the original object, which can be sufficient for many use cases.

Cons:

* It may not work correctly if the original object contains complex data structures or functions that need to be cloned recursively.

2. **"assign"**
The benchmark definition for this test case is:
```javascript
const food = {beef: '🥩', bacon: '🥓'};
const cloneFood = Object.assign({}, food);
console.log(cloneFood);
```
This test case measures the performance of cloning an object using `Object.assign()` with an empty object as the target.

**Pros and Cons of `Object.assign()` Approach**

The use of `Object.assign()` to clone an object is another common approach. Here are some pros and cons:

Pros:

* It's widely supported in older browsers.
* It can handle complex data structures, including functions that need to be cloned recursively.

Cons:

* It's less concise than the spread operator approach.
* It may create unnecessary references to original properties if used with `Object.create()` or other methods.

3. **"json"**
The benchmark definition for this test case is:
```javascript
const food = {beef: '🥩', bacon: '🥓'};
const cloneFood = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(food));
console.log(cloneFood);
```
This test case measures the performance of cloning an object using `JSON.stringify()` and then parsing the result back into a JavaScript object.

**Pros and Cons of JSON-based Approach**

The use of `JSON.stringify()` to clone an object is a more explicit approach. Here are some pros and cons:

Pros:

* It's unambiguous and can handle any type of data.
* It creates a deep copy of the original object, including functions and other nested objects.

Cons:

* It may be slower than the spread operator or `Object.assign()` approaches for simple objects.
* It requires careful handling of non-JSON data types.

**Library Used: None**

There are no libraries used in these benchmark definitions. However, it's worth noting that some libraries like Lodash (`cloneDeep`) could provide alternative implementations for cloning objects with better performance or features.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

None of the test cases rely on any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is required to execute the code.

In summary, these three test cases measure the performance of different approaches to cloning objects in JavaScript. The spread operator and `Object.assign()` approaches are concise but may not work correctly for complex data structures, while the JSON-based approach provides more control over the creation of a deep copy.

Related benchmarks:

object clone (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: spread vs assign vs json

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

spread

assign

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):