Benchmark: Object clone vs For loop

HTML Preparation code:

<div id=''></div>

Tests:

For loop
const orderTracking = {}; const styleSet = [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]; for (const style of styleSet) { orderTracking[style] = {}; for (let j = 1; j <= 9; j++) { orderTracking[style][j] = 1; } }
Clone
const orderTracking = {}; const styleSet = [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]; const seed = { 1: 1, 2: 1, 3: 1, 4: 1, 5: 1, 6: 1, 7: 1, 8: 1, 9: 1 } for (const style of styleSet) { orderTracking[style] = Object.assign({}, seed);; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For loop
Clone

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 and explain what's being tested in this specific benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases: "For loop" and "Clone". Both test cases aim to measure the performance difference between using a traditional for loop versus creating an object clone (using `Object.assign`).

**Options compared**

In the "For loop" test case, the performance of a traditional for loop is being measured. In contrast, the "Clone" test case compares the performance of an object clone created using `Object.assign`.

**Pros and Cons of different approaches:**

1. **Traditional For Loop**: This approach is straightforward and easy to understand. However, it can be slow due to the repeated iterations and the overhead of checking loop conditions.
2. **Object Clone (using `Object.assign`)**: Creating an object clone using `Object.assign` is a more efficient approach. It avoids the need for explicit loops and provides a concise way to create copies of objects.

**Pros of Object Clone:**

* Faster execution times, as it eliminates the need for explicit loops.
* Easier to maintain and understand, especially for complex object structures.

**Cons of Object Clone:**

* May not work correctly for all object types (e.g., arrays with non-numeric indices).
* Can be slower than traditional for loops if the object being cloned is very large or has many nested properties.

**Other considerations:**

* In modern JavaScript, `Object.assign` is a built-in method that provides an efficient way to create object clones. However, it's worth noting that some older browsers may not support this method.
* The use of `Object.assign` assumes that the object being cloned has enumerable and configurable properties. If this is not the case, alternative methods (e.g., using a library like Lodash) may be necessary.

**Library usage**

In the provided JSON, none of the test cases explicitly uses a library. However, if you were to use `Object.assign`, it would rely on the built-in method being available in the target browser or environment.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark that requires explanation. The focus is on comparing the performance of traditional for loops versus object clones created using `Object.assign`.

In summary, this benchmark aims to measure the performance difference between using a traditional for loop versus creating an object clone (using `Object.assign`). While both approaches have their pros and cons, object clones are generally faster and easier to maintain.

Related benchmarks:

Object clone vs For loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: For loop vs Clone

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

For loop

Clone

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):