Benchmark: $ vs _ - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/2.4.1/lodash.compat.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var mockObject = {
       stuff: 'foo',
       data: _.times(15, function(n) { return 'this is ' + n; }),
       bar: {
         stuff: 'bar',
         data: _.times(15, function(n) { return 'this is ' + n; }),
         object: document.createElement('div')
       }, 
       testFunction: function() {
         return 'foo';
       }
    };

Tests:

_.cloneDeep(mockObject);
_.cloneDeep(mockObject);
jQuery.extend(true, {}, mockObject);
jQuery.extend(true, {}, mockObject);
_.extend({}, mockObject);
_.extend({}, mockObject);
jQuery.extend({}, mockObject);
jQuery.extend({}, mockObject);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.cloneDeep(mockObject);
jQuery.extend(true, {}, mockObject);
_.extend({}, mockObject);
jQuery.extend({}, mockObject);

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark created on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares the performance of three different methods to clone or extend an object in JavaScript: Lodash's `_cloneDeep` and `_extend` functions, jQuery's `jQuery.extend(true, {}, mockObject)` method.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests the execution speed of these three methods on a complex object with nested structures. The object includes arrays, objects, and a DOM element (`document.createElement('div')`). The test measures how many executions per second each method can perform on this object.

**Options compared:**

1. **Lodash's `_cloneDeep`**: This function creates a deep copy of the input object.
2. **Lodash's `_extend`**: This function merges the properties of two objects into a new object.
3. **jQuery's `jQuery.extend(true, {}, mockObject)`**: This method extends the second object with the properties of another object.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Lodash's `_cloneDeep`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Creates an exact copy of the original object, preserving all its nested structures.
		+ Returns a new object that is not referenced by any other variable in the code.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower than simple assignment due to the overhead of creating a deep copy.
2. **Lodash's `_extend`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Faster than `_cloneDeep`, as it only merges properties from the source object into the target object.
		+ More suitable for simple object merging tasks.
	* Cons:
		+ May not preserve the original structure of nested objects if they are modified in the process of merging.
3. **jQuery's `jQuery.extend(true, {}, mockObject)`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and efficient, as it leverages the browser's built-in object extension mechanism.
	* Cons:
		+ May not preserve the original structure of nested objects if they are modified in the process of extending.
		+ Limited to merging properties from an existing object; no support for creating a new object with default values.

**Library usage:**

1. **Lodash**: A popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for working with data, including `cloneDeep` and `extend`.
2. **jQuery**: A widely used JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. In this benchmark, jQuery's `extend` method is used to demonstrate its capabilities.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

None explicitly mentioned in the provided code snippet.

**Alternative approaches:**

1. **Manual object cloning using `Object.assign()` and recursive function**: This approach would involve creating a recursive function that clones nested objects using `Object.assign()`. While this method is not tested in this benchmark, it's a viable alternative for complex object cloning.
2. **Using native JavaScript spread operator (`{...}`)**: This approach involves using the new spread operator (`{...}`) to create a shallow copy of an object. However, it may not be suitable for deep copying or merging objects with nested structures.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the methods tested in this benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/58.0.3029.96 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 58 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.cloneDeep(mockObject);	115250.0 Ops/sec
jQuery.extend(true, {}, mockObject);	123312.1 Ops/sec
_.extend({}, mockObject);	1027216.1 Ops/sec
jQuery.extend({}, mockObject);	1169620.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

$ vs _ (version: 0)

who cars

Comparing performance of: _.cloneDeep(mockObject); vs jQuery.extend(true, {}, mockObject); vs _.extend({}, mockObject); vs jQuery.extend({}, mockObject);

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.cloneDeep(mockObject);

jQuery.extend(true, {}, mockObject);

_.extend({}, mockObject);

jQuery.extend({}, mockObject);

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):