<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
var arr = new Array(169).fill(0);
[arr];
_.clone(arr);
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Spread Operator | |
Lodash Clone |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Spread Operator | 7965816.0 Ops/sec |
Lodash Clone | 7989133.5 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the benchmark definition and test cases.
Benchmark Definition and Preparation Code
The provided JSON defines a benchmark called "Spread Operator vs Lodash with not so many items". The script preparation code creates an array arr
filled with 169 zeros using var arr = new Array(169).fill(0);
. This array will be used to test the performance of the spread operator ([...arr]
) and Lodash's clone()
function.
The HTML preparation code includes a reference to Lodash library, specifically version 4.17.5, in a <script>
tag: <script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
. This library is used by the Lodash Clone
test case.
Individual Test Cases
The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:
[...arr]
) to create a new array from arr
. This is a built-in JavaScript feature that allows you to expand an iterable (like an array) into individual elements.clone()
function to create a deep copy of the original array arr
. This helps to isolate any differences in performance due to memory allocation or garbage collection.Pros and Cons
Here are some pros and cons of each approach:
Library and Purpose
The clone()
function in Lodash is designed to create a deep copy of an object or array. It recursively traverses the original data structure, creating new objects and arrays as needed, to ensure that all nested properties are copied accurately. This allows developers to safely modify the original data without affecting other parts of their codebase.
Special JS Features and Syntax
None mentioned in this benchmark definition.
Other Alternatives
If you want to compare the performance of these two approaches with others, here are some alternatives:
Keep in mind that each approach has its own trade-offs and may perform better or worse depending on specific use cases, hardware, and software configurations.