Benchmark: Spread Operator vs Lodash [2]

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var arr = new Array(100000000).fill(0);

Tests:

Spread Operato
[...arr];
Lodash clone deep
_.cloneDeep(arr);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Spread Operato
Lodash clone deep

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Spread Operato	4.6 Ops/sec
Lodash clone deep	0.2 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches:

1. The spread operator (`[...arr]`)
2. Lodash's `cloneDeep` function (`_.cloneDeep(arr)`)

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

* Using the spread operator to create a new array from an existing one.
* Using Lodash's `cloneDeep` function to create a deep copy of the original array.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Spread Operator:**
	* Pros:
		+ Lightweight, as it only creates a reference to the original array elements.
		+ Easy to understand and use.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower for very large arrays, as JavaScript needs to traverse the entire array to create new elements.
		+ May not work well with complex data structures or objects.
2. **Lodash's `cloneDeep` Function:**
	* Pros:
		+ Creates a deep copy of the original array, which means it will recursively clone all nested elements and objects.
		+ Can be faster for very large arrays, as it only needs to traverse the top-level array structure.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an external library (Lodash) to be included in the benchmark.
		+ May have a higher memory footprint due to the additional cloned objects.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark is using Chrome 126 on a Windows desktop, which may not represent all possible user environments. Other browsers or platforms might produce different results.
* The `ExecutionsPerSecond` metric provides an idea of how many times each test case can be executed per second, but it doesn't necessarily reflect the overall performance difference between the two approaches.

**Lodash Library**

The benchmark includes Lodash 4.17.15 in its HTML preparation code via a script tag. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various helper functions for tasks like array manipulation, object creation, and data transformation.

In this specific case, `cloneDeep` is used to create a deep copy of the original array, which helps to avoid modifying the original data when using the spread operator.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark does not specifically use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation. However, it's worth noting that some other approaches (e.g., `Array.prototype.slice.call(arr)`) might be included in alternative benchmarks to test performance differences with these methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to create an alternative benchmark for comparing the spread operator and Lodash's `cloneDeep` function, you could consider adding additional test cases that:

* Use different array sizes (e.g., 100,000 elements) to see how the performance scales.
* Compare the spread operator with other deep copying methods, such as `Array.prototype.slice()` or `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(arr))`.
* Test the impact of the benchmark's environment on performance (e.g., running it in a web worker, comparing results across different browsers).

These additional test cases would help provide a more comprehensive understanding of how these approaches perform under various conditions.

Related benchmarks:

Spread Operator vs Lodash [2] (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Spread Operato vs Lodash clone deep

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Spread Operato

Lodash clone deep

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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