Benchmark: abcddef - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function objClone(obj) {
  var index = 0,
    keys = Object.keys(obj),
    length = keys.length,
    key,
    result = {};

  for (; index < length; index += 1) {
    key = keys[index];
    result[key] = obj[key];
  }
  return result;
}

var testObj = {
  a: {
    b: {
      c: [1,2,4, {}, [4,2], {
        d: 4,
        e: {},
        f: [4,5,2],
      }]
    }
  }
};

Tests:

clone object manually
objClone(testObj)
clone object native
Object.assign({}, testObj);
freeze
Object.freeze(objClone)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
clone object manually
clone object native
freeze

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and benchmark results to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The JSON contains two main sections: `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`. The `Script Preparation Code` section defines a JavaScript function `objClone` that clones an object manually. The `Html Preparation Code` section is empty, indicating no HTML-specific code needs to be executed before running the benchmark.

The `Benchmark Definition` JSON also includes three test cases:

1. `clone object manually`: This test case runs the `objClone` function with the `testObj` as input.
2. `clone object native`: This test case uses the built-in `Object.assign()` method to clone the `testObj`.
3. `freeze`: This test case freezes the result of the `objClone` function using the `Object.freeze()` method.

**Test Cases**

Let's examine each test case:

1. **clone object manually**: This test case uses a custom implementation (`objClone`) to clone an object. The pros of this approach are:
	* Better control over the cloning process.
	* Potential for more efficient cloning (depending on the implementation).
However, the cons include:
	* Custom implementation might not be widely supported or understood by other developers.
	* More complex and harder to debug.
2. **clone object native**: This test case uses a built-in method (`Object.assign()`) provided by JavaScript. The pros of this approach are:
	* Widely supported and understood by most developers.
	* Efficient and well-optimized.
However, the cons include:
	* Less control over the cloning process.
3. **freeze**: This test case freezes the result of the `objClone` function using `Object.freeze()`. The pros of this approach are:
	* Ensures the cloned object cannot be modified after freezing.
	* Can help prevent unintended changes to the original data.

**Library/Functionality Used**

The `objClone` function uses a manual implementation to clone an object. This is not a built-in JavaScript library, but rather a custom function defined in the `Script Preparation Code`.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None of the test cases explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's commonly used in modern JavaScript.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to cloning objects in JavaScript, consider using:

1. **Lodash's `cloneDeep()` function**: A popular library that provides a robust and efficient way to clone objects.
2. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))**: This approach uses JSON serialization and deserialization to create a deep copy of an object.

However, keep in mind that these alternatives might not be suitable for every use case, especially when performance or control are critical factors.

In summary, the provided benchmark tests three different approaches to cloning objects: manual implementation (`objClone`), built-in method (`Object.assign()`), and freezing the result (`Object.freeze()`). Each approach has its pros and cons, and choosing the right one depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Ubuntu Chromium/52.0.2743.116 Chrome/52.0.2743.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chromium 52 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
clone object manually	2219568.8 Ops/sec
clone object native	2215845.5 Ops/sec
freeze	2707.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

abcddef (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: clone object manually vs clone object native vs freeze

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

clone object manually

clone object native

freeze

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):