Benchmark: Test copy methods (primitive)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.6.2/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var voucher = 5

Tests:

structuredClone
const copy = window.structuredClone(voucher);
Direct copy
const copy = voucher;
JSON
const copy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(voucher));
cloneDeep
const copy = _.cloneDeep(voucher)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
structuredClone
Direct copy
JSON
cloneDeep

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
structuredClone	418524.9 Ops/sec
Direct copy	12451991.0 Ops/sec
JSON	1424267.5 Ops/sec
cloneDeep	3696709.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and discussed.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of different methods to copy a primitive value (in this case, an integer) in JavaScript. The benchmark compares four approaches:

1. `structuredClone`
2. Direct assignment (`const copy = voucher;`)
3. `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(voucher))`
4. `_.cloneDeep` (using Lodash library)

**Approaches and Their Pros/Cons**

1. **Direct Assignment**: This approach is the simplest and most straightforward way to create a copy of the value. However, it may not be suitable for large objects or complex data structures.
	* Pros: Simple, fast, and easy to implement
	* Cons: May not preserve object references or properties
2. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(voucher))**: This approach uses JSON serialization and deserialization to create a copy of the value. While it's more robust than direct assignment, it can still lead to issues with complex data structures.
	* Pros: Preserves object references and properties, but may be slower due to serialization overhead
	* Cons: Can be slower, may not handle circular references well
3. **_.cloneDeep` (using Lodash library)**: This approach uses a dedicated cloning function from the Lodash library to create a deep copy of the value.
	* Pros: Preserves object references and properties, handles complex data structures, and is often faster than manual serialization
	* Cons: Requires an external library (Lodash)
4. **structuredClone**: This approach uses a new method introduced in ECMAScript 2022 to create a deep copy of the value.
	* Pros: Preserves object references and properties, handles complex data structures, and is designed for performance and security
	* Cons: Requires modern JavaScript engines (ECMAScript 2022+)

**Library Overview**

The benchmark uses Lodash library (`_.cloneDeep`) to provide a deep cloning function. Lodash is a popular utility library that provides various functions for working with arrays, objects, and other data structures.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

This benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's required by the `structuredClone` method (introduced in ECMAScript 2022). However, it does rely on modern JavaScript engines that support this new feature.

**Other Alternatives**

If you don't want to use Lodash, you can implement a deep cloning function using recursive object copying or other techniques. Alternatively, you could use other libraries like Immutable.js or Ramda for deep cloning and manipulation of data structures. However, these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and requirements compared to the benchmark's results.

In summary, this benchmark provides an overview of different methods for copying primitive values in JavaScript, highlighting their pros and cons, and showcasing the benefits of modern features like `structuredClone`.

Related benchmarks:

Test copy methods (primitive) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: structuredClone vs Direct copy vs JSON vs cloneDeep

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

structuredClone

Direct copy

JSON

cloneDeep

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):