Benchmark: RFDC vs. Object Assign

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/rfdc@1.3.0/index.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var originalObj = {
	key: 12345, 
  	name: 'Original Object',
  	isTrue: true
};
var clonedObj = null;

Tests:

RFDC Clone
var clone = rfdc(); clonedObj = clone(originalObj);
Object Assign
clonedObj = Object.assign({}, originalObj);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RFDC Clone
Object Assign

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition provides two options for creating a cloned object:

1. **RFDC (Replacer for Deep Copy)**: This option uses the `rfdc()` function, which is a deep cloning library that creates a new object with references to all properties of the original object.
2. **Object Assign**: This option uses the `Object.assign()` method, which creates a shallow clone of an object by copying its own enumerable properties.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests the performance difference between these two methods in creating a cloned object. The test case measures the execution speed of each approach.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **RFDC (Replacer for Deep Copy)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a deep clone, which is useful when working with complex objects that contain other objects.
		+ Can be more efficient than shallow cloning if the original object has many nested properties.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower than shallow cloning due to the overhead of creating new objects and recursively copying properties.
2. **Object Assign**:
	* Pros:
		+ Faster execution speed compared to deep cloning, especially for shallow clones.
		+ More widely supported and used in JavaScript applications.
	* Cons:
		+ Creates a shallow clone, which may not be suitable for complex objects with nested properties.

**Library usage**

The `rfdc` library is used in the benchmark. This library provides a simple way to create deep clones of objects by returning an array of replacers that can then be applied to the original object.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

None mentioned.

**Other alternatives**

If you need to perform cloning operations, other alternatives include:

* Lodash's `cloneDeep` function
* JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj)) (a simple way to create a deep clone, but may not work as expected with some objects)
* Recursion-based cloning using a custom function

It's worth noting that the best approach depends on the specific use case and requirements. If you need to work with complex objects and don't mind slower execution speed, RFDC might be a better choice. For simpler clones or when performance is critical, Object Assign could be a more suitable option.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RFDC Clone	12853832.0 Ops/sec
Object Assign	50565388.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

RFDC vs. Object Assign (version: 1)

Even though this isn't a fair comparison since we're not talking deep cloning, this is a benchmark to see if RFDC can be used in any case, deep cloning or not.

Comparing performance of: RFDC Clone vs Object Assign

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

RFDC Clone

Object Assign

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):