Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Deep clone JSON vs JQUERY
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
json vs jquery
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
var obj = { a: 1, b: { c: 2 }, d: [4, 5, 6], e: { f: [1, 2], g: { h: 1 } } };
Tests:
json
JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))
jquery
$.extend(true, {}, obj);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
json
jquery
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark compares two approaches to create a deep clone of a JSON object: using `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))` (the "json" approach) and using jQuery's `$().extend(true, {}, obj)` method (the "jquery" approach). **Options Compared** Two options are compared: 1. **Deep Clone Using `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))`:** This method uses the `JSON.stringify()` function to serialize the JSON object into a string, which is then parsed again using `JSON.parse()` to create a deep clone. 2. **Deep Clone Using jQuery's `$().extend(true, {}, obj)`:** This method uses jQuery's `$()` function to select an empty DOM element (which is not actually necessary in this case), and then passes the original object as an argument to the `$.extend()` method. The second argument to `$.extend()` creates a new object that will receive the properties of the original object, effectively creating a deep clone. **Pros and Cons** **Deep Clone Using `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))`:** Pros: * Simple and widely supported in most modern browsers * Efficient, as it uses built-in JavaScript functions to perform the cloning Cons: * Can be slower for very large objects due to the overhead of serializing and parsing the JSON string * May not work correctly if the object contains circular references (i.e., an object that refers back to itself in its own properties) **Deep Clone Using jQuery's `$().extend(true, {}, obj)`:** Pros: * Can handle large objects more efficiently than the `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))` approach * Works well with JSON objects that contain circular references Cons: * Requires jQuery library to be loaded and included in the HTML file * More complex and less widely supported than the `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))` approach * May have additional overhead due to the use of jQuery's DOM manipulation functions. **Library Usage** The benchmark uses the jQuery library, which is a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. In this specific case, jQuery's `$().extend(true, {}, obj)` method is used to create a deep clone of the JSON object. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is required to execute the two cloning approaches.
Related benchmarks:
Object cloning with Lodash clone vs ES6 object spread vs ES6 Object.assign vs Json
Object cloning with Lodash clone vs cloneDeep vs merge vs ES6 object spread vs ES6 Object.assign vs JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())
Object cloning with Lodash clone vs cloneDeep vs merge vs ES6 object spread vs ES6 Object.assign VS JSON.parse
Object cloning with Lodash clone vs cloneDeep vs merge vs structuredClone vs JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(o))
Object cloning with Lodash clone vs cloneDeep vs merge vs structuredClone vs JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(o)) 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?