const object = {type: "gilada"};
const copy = Object.assign({}, object);
const object = {type: "gilada"};
const copy = {object};
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Assign | |
Spread |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Assign | 6718099.5 Ops/sec |
Spread | 85813112.0 Ops/sec |
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.
What is being tested?
The benchmark is testing two approaches to creating a copy of an object in JavaScript: using Object.assign()
and using the spread operator (...
). The benchmark is measuring which approach is faster, as well as the overhead of each method.
Options compared:
There are two options being compared:
Object.assign()
to create a copy of an object....
) to create a copy of an object.Pros and cons of each approach:
Object.assign()
Library usage:
There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's worth noting that both Object.assign()
and the spread operator are built-in JavaScript methods.
Special JS feature/syntax:
The benchmark uses the spread operator (...
), which is a relatively modern feature introduced in ES6 (ECMAScript 2015). This means that older browsers or environments may not support this syntax, although they may still execute it due to polyfills or other mechanisms. The benchmark assumes that the test environment supports ES6 features.
Other considerations:
Alternatives:
If you're interested in exploring other ways to create object copies in JavaScript, consider the following alternatives:
slice()
is another common approach.JSON.parse
and JSON.stringify
can create a deep copy of an object.Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs, pros, and cons, which may not be immediately apparent without testing them thoroughly.