Benchmark: Angular Copy vs Lodash Clone

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.16.1/lodash.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/angular.js/1.5.8/angular.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {
		"crossKey": "EURUSD",
		"dayLowPrice": 1.13045,
		"dayHighPrice": 1.13535,
		"previousClosePrice": 1.13215,
		"priceHist1": 107190404,
		"priceHist2": 250587665,
		"priceHist3": 765906410,
		"priceHist4": 274925633,
		"sparkline": 102925375,
		"spotPrice": 1.1307,
		"midPrice": 1.1307,
		"precision": 4,
		"percentChanged": -0.128,
		"threeMonthForecast": 1.08,
		"sixMonthForecast": 1.04,
		"tradable": true,
		"deliverable": true,
		"key": "EURUSD",
		"displayName": "EUR USD",
		"symbolId": "EURUSD",
		"objectId": 1,
		"assetType": "fx",
		"percentChange": -0.13,
		"selected": true,
		"lineChart": "9991581684158672254519078266440407",
		"barChart": [9, 43, 92, 47, 41, 21, 75, 32, 51, 19, 56, 97, 89, 36, 70, 2, 83, 61, 88, 47, 31, 54],
		"candleChart": "3869460804391469604270058742695196",
		"midPriceModel": "Price: key EURUSD, rate 1.1307, precision 4, appendFrac false, => 1.13 07 ",
		"spotPriceModel": "Price: key EURUSD, rate 1.1307, precision 4, appendFrac false, => 1.13 07 ",
		"crossCurrencies": ["EUR", "USD"],
		"unpackedSparkLine": {
			"price": 2,
			"priceDirection": 1,
			"fiveMinHigh": 4,
			"fiveMinLow": 0,
			"spike": 0,
			"scale": 30
		},
		"priceHistory": [3, 6, 7, 6, 4, 4, 7, 14, 31, 10, 16, 17, 22, 26, 13, 19, 15, 10, 8, 6, 6, 2, 2, 1]
	};

Tests:

Angular copy
angular.copy(obj);
Lodash Deep Clone
_.clone(obj);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Angular copy
Lodash Deep Clone

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The test is designed to compare two approaches for object cloning: Angular's `copy` function and Lodash's `clone` function.

**Test Description**

The test creates an object `obj` with various properties, including nested objects and arrays. Then, it uses each of two functions:

1. `angular.copy(obj);`: This function is used to create a shallow copy of the original object.
2. `_.clone(obj);`: This function is used to create a deep clone of the original object.

The test measures the execution time of each function and compares the results.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Angular's `copy` function**: Creates a shallow copy of the original object.
	* Pros: Efficient for small objects, simple to implement.
	* Cons: Does not recursively clone nested objects, may not work with complex data structures.
2. **Lodash's `clone` function**: Creates a deep clone of the original object.
	* Pros: Recursively clones nested objects, works with complex data structures.
	* Cons: May be slower and more memory-intensive due to recursive cloning.

**Library Used**

The test uses two JavaScript libraries:

1. **Angular.js**: A JavaScript framework for building web applications.
2. **Lodash**: A utility library providing a lot of useful functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array manipulation, object management, function utility, math operations, and more.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There is no mention of any special JavaScript features or syntax in the test case.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between Angular's `copy` function and Lodash's `clone` function, consider the following factors:

* **Data complexity**: If you're working with simple data structures, Angular's `copy` function may be sufficient. For more complex data structures, Lodash's `clone` function is likely a better choice.
* **Performance**: Lodash's `clone` function is generally slower than Angular's `copy` function due to its recursive cloning mechanism.
* **Memory usage**: Lodash's `clone` function can consume more memory due to the recursive cloning process.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for object cloning include:

1. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))**: This method creates a deep clone of an object by serializing it as JSON and then parsing it back into an object.
2. **for...in loops**: You can use `for...in` loops to iterate over the object's properties and create a new object with the same properties, but this approach is generally slower and less efficient than the other options.

It's worth noting that some modern JavaScript engines, like V8 (used by Google Chrome), have built-in support for object cloning through their `Object.assign()` method. However, this method may not work correctly with all data structures or libraries.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/68.0.3440.75 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 68 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Angular copy	85795.1 Ops/sec
Lodash Deep Clone	93322.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Angular Copy vs Lodash Clone (version: 0)

compare object copy

Comparing performance of: Angular copy vs Lodash Deep Clone

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Angular copy

Lodash Deep Clone

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):