Benchmark: structuredClone vs clone

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/clone@2.1.2/clone.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var MyObject = {
  description: 'Creates a deep copy of source, which should be an object or an array.',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
  jayson: {
    stringify: 'JSON.stringify() method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string....',
    parse: 'JSON.parse() method parses a JSON string...'
  }
};

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

structuredClone
myCopy = structuredClone(MyObject);
NPM clone
myCopy = clone(MyObject);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
structuredClone
NPM 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 break down the provided JSON data and explain what is being tested in the MeasureThat.net benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents two test cases: `structuredClone` and `NPM clone`. Both tests aim to measure the performance of creating a copy of an object using different methods.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Structured Clone**: This method is part of the ECMAScript 2022 standard, which allows creating a deep copy of an object without the need for explicit serialization and deserialization.
2. **NPM clone**: This method uses a third-party library (`clone` package) to create a deep copy of an object.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Structured Clone**:
	+ Pros: Native JavaScript implementation, should be faster since it doesn't require an external library.
	+ Cons: Limited browser support (only Chrome 114 in the provided benchmark), may not work with older browsers or specific use cases.
* **NPM clone**:
	+ Pros: Widespread support across modern browsers and Node.js environments, reliable implementation.
	+ Cons: Requires an additional library, may introduce overhead due to the extra dependency.

**Library**

In the `Html Preparation Code` section, a reference to the `clone` package is provided. The `clone` library is a popular and well-maintained package for creating deep copies of objects in JavaScript. It's widely used and supported across various platforms.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The `structuredClone` method is a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2022. It allows creating a deep copy of an object without the need for explicit serialization and deserialization, which can improve performance and reduce memory usage. This feature is still relatively new and may not be supported by all browsers or environments.

**Other Alternatives**

If `structuredClone` is not available or not supported in your environment, other alternatives for creating deep copies of objects include:

* Using a library like Lodash (`_cloneDeep`) or Immutable.js.
* Implementing a custom cloning function using recursion or iteration.
* Utilizing other serialization and deserialization methods, such as JSON.stringify() and JSON.parse(), although this approach can be slower and less efficient.

Keep in mind that the choice of implementation depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and compatibility needs.

Related benchmarks:

structuredClone vs clone (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: structuredClone vs NPM clone

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

structuredClone

NPM 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):