Benchmark: Object.assign jQuery.extend JSON

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.2.3.min.js"></script>

Tests:

Object.assign
var params = { b:"hello", c: true, d:7 }; var other = Object.assign({}, params);
JSON
var params = { b:"hello", c: true, d:7 }; var other = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify({ b:"hello", c: true, d:7 }));
jQuery.extend
var params = { b:"hello", c: true, d:7 }; var other = $.extend(true, {}, params);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.assign
JSON
jQuery.extend

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.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three JavaScript methods for creating shallow copies of objects: `Object.assign`, `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())`, and `$.extend(true, {})` (using jQuery). The goal is to determine which method performs best in terms of execution speed.

**Options Compared**

1. **Object.assign()**: This method creates a new object with the same properties as the original object.
2. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())**: This method parses a JSON string and returns an object with the same properties as the input string. However, this method also serializes the object, which can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of serialization.
3. **$.extend(true, {})** (using jQuery): This method extends the original object with new key-value pairs.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Object.assign()**:
	* Pros: Fast, simple, and widely supported.
	* Cons: Can be slower for very large objects due to the overhead of creating a new object.
2. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())**:
	* Pros: Works for any type of object, including arrays and functions.
	* Cons: Slower performance due to serialization, as it creates a deep copy of the original object.
3. **$.extend(true, {})** (using jQuery):
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, especially when working with large objects.
	* Cons: Requires jQuery to be included in the project.

**Library and Purpose**

The `JSON` library is used to parse JSON strings and create an object from it. The purpose of this method is to demonstrate the performance difference between serializing and deserializing objects.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in these benchmarks.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses a desktop browser (Chrome 96) running on Windows, which may not be representative of other platforms or browsers.
* The test cases use small to medium-sized objects, which might not accurately represent the performance characteristics of larger objects.
* The benchmark does not account for potential edge cases or errors that might occur during execution.

**Alternatives**

1. **Lodash.cloneDeep()**: This method creates a deep copy of an object, similar to `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())`. However, it is optimized for performance and provides more control over the cloning process.
2. **Immutable.js**: This library provides a set of immutable data structures and functions that can be used to create copies of objects efficiently.

In conclusion, this benchmark provides a useful insight into the performance differences between three popular methods for creating shallow copies of objects in JavaScript. However, it's essential to consider the specific use case and potential edge cases before selecting an implementation.

Related benchmarks:

Object.assign jQuery.extend JSON (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object.assign vs JSON vs jQuery.extend

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.assign

JSON

jQuery.extend

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):