Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
testingCloneObject
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
vanila vs JSON.parse
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var bob = { name: "Bob", age: 32 };
Tests:
vanila
function cloneObject(obj) { if (obj === null || typeof obj !== 'object') { return obj; } var temp = obj.constructor(); // give temp the original obj's constructor for (var key in obj) { temp[key] = cloneObject(obj[key]); } return temp; } var bill = (cloneObject(bob));
JSON.parse
var bill2 = (JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(bob)));
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
vanila
JSON.parse
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'd be happy to help you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches for cloning an object in JavaScript: 1. **Vanilla Clone**: The first approach uses a custom `cloneObject` function to recursively clone the object. 2. **JSON.parse with stringify**: The second approach uses `JSON.parse` and `JSON.stringify` methods to clone the object. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares two options for cloning an object: 1. **Vanilla Clone**: A custom function that recursively clones the object using the original constructor and properties. 2. **JSON.parse with stringify**: Uses `JSON.parse` to parse the JSON representation of the object, and then uses `JSON.stringify` to create a new object with the same structure. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: **Vanilla Clone** Pros: * Native JavaScript implementation * Can handle complex object structures * May be faster for large objects Cons: * More code to write and maintain * May not work correctly for all types of objects (e.g., arrays, functions) **JSON.parse with stringify** Pros: * Simple and concise implementation * Works well for most types of objects * Fast and efficient Cons: * Uses extra memory to store the JSON representation * May not be suitable for very large objects due to performance overhead **Other Considerations** When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors: * **Object complexity**: If you need to clone complex object structures, the vanilla clone approach may be more suitable. * **Performance**: For simple clones, `JSON.parse with stringify` is often faster and more efficient. * **Memory usage**: If memory is a concern, the vanilla clone approach may be more suitable due to its ability to handle large objects. **Library Used** The benchmark uses the `JSON` object from the built-in JavaScript API. The `JSON.parse` and `JSON.stringify` methods are used to parse and generate JSON representations of the object. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. Both approaches rely on standard JavaScript features and data structures. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for cloning objects in JavaScript include: * **Lodash's `cloneDeep` function**: A popular utility library that provides a robust implementation of deep cloning. * **ES6's `Object.assign()` method with spread syntax**: Can be used to clone objects, but may not work correctly for all types of objects. In summary, the benchmark compares two approaches for cloning objects in JavaScript: a custom vanilla clone function and the `JSON.parse with stringify` approach. Each has its pros and cons, and the choice depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as object complexity, performance, and memory usage.
Related benchmarks:
typeof undefined
Testytesty2
in vs hasOwnProperty
hasOwnProperty string vs number
in vs. hasOwnProperty
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?