Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
oobject clone
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
object assign vs json
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var object = {a:1, b:'2', c:false};
Tests:
object assign
var object2 = Object.assign({}, object);
json
var object2 = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(object));
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is defined by providing a script preparation code that creates an object `object` with three properties: `a`, `b`, and `c`. The object contains values of different data types: an integer (`1`), a string (`"2"`), and a boolean (`false`). This object serves as the input for the benchmark. **Options Compared** Two options are compared: 1. **Object Assign**: `var object2 = Object.assign({}, object);` 2. **JSON Parse/Stringify**: `var object2 = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(object));` These two approaches aim to clone the original object `object`. However, they differ in how they achieve this. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** ### Object Assign **Pros:** * Fast and efficient * Creates a shallow copy of the original object, which is sufficient for most use cases * Native JavaScript support, making it widely available and reliable **Cons:** * Does not create a deep copy, as it only copies the top-level properties. This means that nested objects or arrays are preserved in their original form. * Can be less intuitive to understand compared to other methods. ### JSON Parse/Stringify **Pros:** * Creates a deep copy of the original object, including all nested properties and arrays * Can be more reliable than Object.assign when dealing with complex data structures **Cons:** * Slower performance compared to Object.assign due to additional parsing steps * Requires two separate function calls (JSON.parse and JSON.stringify), which can be overkill for simple cloning. **Library/Functionality Used** In the provided benchmark definition, `Object.assign` is used as the primary method. This is a built-in JavaScript function that creates a shallow copy of an object by assigning its values to a new object. The `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(object))` approach uses the `JSON.stringify` function to serialize the original object and then parses the resulting string back into a new object using `JSON.parse`. This method can create a deep copy, but it's not as efficient as Object.assign. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two basic cloning methods. **Other Alternatives** For creating a deep copy of an object, other alternatives include: * `lodash.cloneDeep()`: A popular external library that provides a safe and efficient way to clone complex data structures. * `Array.prototype.slice()` followed by `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` for arrays. * `XMLSerializer` for serializing XML objects (although not applicable in this specific benchmark). Keep in mind that for most use cases, Object.assign will suffice. However, if you're working with complex data structures or require a deeper understanding of the cloning process, one of these alternative methods might be more suitable.
Related benchmarks:
Object.assign vs mutation assign
Object.assign mutation vs spread
Deep Clone Object: JSON.parse vs Object.assign
test for Vovan
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?