Benchmark: Object.assign vs. JSON String/Parse Tyler D

Tests:

Spread operator
var n = {foo: 'bar', hello: [{hello: 'world', foo: 'bar'},{hello: 'world', foo: 'bar'},{hello: 'world', foo: 'bar'},{hello: 'world', foo: 'bar'}]}; while(n.length < 1000) { n = {...n}; }
JSON Parse
var n = {foo: 'bar', hello: [{hello: 'world', foo: 'bar'},{hello: 'world', foo: 'bar'},{hello: 'world', foo: 'bar'},{hello: 'world', foo: 'bar'}]}; while(n.length < 1000) { n = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(n)) }
Object.assign
var n = {foo: 'bar', hello: [{hello: 'world', foo: 'bar'},{hello: 'world', foo: 'bar'},{hello: 'world', foo: 'bar'},{hello: 'world', foo: 'bar'}]}; while(n.length < 1000) { n = Object.assign({}, n); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Spread operator
JSON Parse
Object.assign

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.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark, hosted on MeasureThat.net, compares the performance of three approaches for creating and updating object references in JavaScript: Object.assign(), JSON Parse/Parse String, and Spread operator.

**Options Compared**

1. **Object.assign()**: This method creates a new object reference by cloning an existing object using the spread operator (`{...obj}`).
2. **JSON Parse/Parse String**: This approach uses `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))` to create a deep copy of an object.
3. **Spread Operator**: This method uses the spread operator (`{...obj}`) to create a new object reference, similar to Object.assign(), but without cloning the entire object.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Object.assign()**: Pros:
	+ Fast and efficient for small objects
	+ Easy to use
Cons:
	+ Creates a shallow copy of the original object, which may not be suitable for complex data structures (e.g., arrays or objects with circular references).
* **JSON Parse/Parse String**: Pros:
	+ Creates a deep copy of the original object, making it suitable for complex data structures.
	+ However, this approach is slower due to the additional parsing step.
Cons:
	+ More complex and less readable than Object.assign().
* **Spread Operator**: Pros:
	+ Fast and efficient for small objects
	+ Easy to use and more readable than Object.assign() for simple cases
Cons:
	+ Does not create a deep copy of the original object, making it less suitable for complex data structures.

**Library and Purpose**

None of the options in this benchmark require any external libraries. However, the use of `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))` does rely on the built-in JavaScript `JSON` module to parse JSON strings.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

This benchmark uses a few special features:

* **Destructuring assignment**: The spread operator (`{...n}`) and Object.assign() both utilize destructuring assignment, which allows for concise object creation.
* **Cyclic references**: One of the test cases includes objects with circular references (i.e., an object that references itself). This helps to identify any issues related to deep copying.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need a more robust or efficient way to create and update object references, consider using:

* **Lodash's `cloneDeep()` function**: A popular library for functional programming in JavaScript.
* **Immer.js**: A library that provides a safer alternative to Object.assign() for updating complex data structures.

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these options are typically negligible unless working with very large datasets or complex data structures.

Related benchmarks:

Object.assign vs. JSON String/Parse Tyler D (version: 0)

Creating a "new" object reference every time

Comparing performance of: Spread operator vs JSON Parse vs Object.assign

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Spread operator

JSON Parse

Object.assign

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):