Benchmark: structuredClone vs spread vs Object.assign() vs JSON.parse(JSON.stringify)

Script Preparation code:

var oldObj = {
    "single": false,
    "applyOverTaxes": false,
    "discountType": "1",
    "value": 100,
    "minimumAmount": 0,
    "quantity": 1,
    "suffixLength": 8,
    "code": "IF5R0AFX",
    "vertical": true,
    "allowedPaymentMethods": null,
    "allowedBanks": null,
    "types": undefined,
    "partners": "Many",
    "startDate": "2020-10-21T00:00:00.000Z",
    "endDate": "2020-10-21T00:00:00.000Z",
    "applyed": false,
  	"myarr": [{a: 1, b: "2", c: [3,4,5]}]
}

Tests:

structuredClone()
const newObj = structuredClone(oldObj)
spread syntax
const newObj = {...oldObj}
Object.assign()
const newObj = Object.assign({}, oldObj)
JSON
const newObj = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(oldObj))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
structuredClone()
spread syntax
Object.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.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of four different approaches for cloning or serializing JavaScript objects:

1. **structuredClone()**: This is a built-in JavaScript function introduced in ECMAScript 2022, which creates a shallow clone of an object, including its enumerable properties and their values.
2. **Spread syntax (Object spread)**: This approach uses the spread operator (`...`) to create a new object with the same properties as the original object.
3. **Object.assign()**: This method copies the properties from one or more source objects to a target object.
4. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())**: This approach serializes the object using JSON.stringify() and then parses the resulting string back into an object.

**Options Compared**

Each option is compared in terms of:

* Execution time (ExecutionsPerSecond)
* Number of executions per second

**Pros and Cons**

* **structuredClone()**:
	+ Pros: Efficient, easy to use, creates a shallow clone that preserves the original object's properties.
	+ Cons: Only available in ECMAScript 2022 and later versions; may not work with older browsers or environments.
* **Spread syntax (Object spread)**:
	+ Pros: Easy to use, efficient, and compatible with most modern browsers and environments.
	+ Cons: May not work with certain types of objects (e.g., Date, RegExp) that are serialized using JSON.stringify().
* **Object.assign()**:
	+ Pros: Widely supported across different browsers and environments; easy to understand.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than the other options, especially for large objects.
* **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())**:
	+ Pros: Easy to use and widely supported across different browsers and environments.
	+ Cons: May not work with certain types of objects (e.g., Date, RegExp) that are serialized using JSON.stringify(); can be slower than the other options.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, none of the libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, it is likely that the benchmark uses a library like `structuredClone` polyfill for older browsers or environments that do not support the `structuredClone()` function natively.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax other than those mentioned above.

Related benchmarks:

structuredClone vs spread vs Object.assign() vs JSON.parse(JSON.stringify) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: structuredClone() vs spread syntax vs Object.assign() vs JSON

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

structuredClone()

spread syntax

Object.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):