Benchmark: testingCloneObject2

HTML Preparation code:

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

AخA
 
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/2.4.1/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var bob = {
    name: "Bob",
    age: 32,
  	lastName: "test",
    local: {there:"there"},
    test:{
      test:{
        test:"test"
      }
    }
  };

 
var bob = {    name: "Bob",    age: 32,    lastName: "test",    local: {there:"there"},    test:{      test:{        test:"test"      }    }  };

Tests:

vanila

function cloneObject(obj) {
    if (obj === null || typeof obj !== 'object') {
        return obj;
    }
 
    var temp = obj.constructor(); // give temp the original obj's constructor
    for (var key in obj) {
        temp[key] = cloneObject(obj[key]);
    }
 
    return temp;
}
var bill = (cloneObject(bob));

 
function cloneObject(obj) {    if (obj === null || typeof obj !== 'object') {        return obj;    }     var temp = obj.constructor(); // give temp the original obj's constructor    for (var key in obj) {        temp[key] = cloneObject(obj[key]);    }     return temp;}var bill = (cloneObject(bob));

JSON.parse
var bill2 = (JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(bob)));
var bill2 = (JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(bob)));
lodash
var deep = _.cloneDeep(bob);
var deep = _.cloneDeep(bob);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
vanila
JSON.parse
lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.143 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 53 on Mac OS X 10.11.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
vanila	1143883.2 Ops/sec
JSON.parse	246639.2 Ops/sec
lodash	135253.9 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):

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

Benchmark Definition

The benchmark definition is provided in JSON format, which outlines two scripts: Script Preparation Code and Html Preparation Code. The Script Preparation Code defines an object bob with various properties, including nested objects. The Html Preparation Code includes a reference to the Lodash library.

Options Compared

The benchmark compares three different approaches for cloning the bob object:

Vanilla JavaScript: This approach uses a custom function cloneObject that recursively clones the object using its constructor and properties.
JSON.parse: This approach uses the JSON.parse method to clone the object by stringifying it, parsing it back as JSON, and then converting the resulting JSON string back to an object.
Lodash: This approach uses the Lodash library's cloneDeep function to deep-clone the object.

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

Vanilla JavaScript:
- Pros: Easy to implement, no external dependencies required.
- Cons: May be slower due to its iterative nature and potential performance overhead.
JSON.parse:
- Pros: Simple and fast, as it leverages the built-in JSON object.
- Cons: May not work correctly for nested objects with circular references or non-serializable properties.
Lodash:
- Pros: Provides a robust and efficient way to clone objects, especially for deep cloning.
- Cons: Requires an external dependency (Lodash library).

Library and Its Purpose

The Lodash library is used in the benchmark to provide a convenient and efficient way to perform deep cloning of complex objects.

Special JS Feature or Syntax

None mentioned in this specific benchmark.

Other Considerations

When testing benchmarking results, it's essential to consider factors such as:

Platform and browser: The benchmark was run on Chrome 53 on a Mac with OS X 10.11.6.
Device platform: This may affect the performance of the browser or rendering engine.
Number of executions per second: A higher value indicates faster performance.

Alternatives

Other approaches for cloning objects in JavaScript include:

Using the Object.assign method with a deep copy function (e.g., deepcopy from the lodash library).
Utilizing libraries like json-stringify-safe or json-deep-clone.
Implementing custom recursive functions similar to the vanilla JavaScript approach.

Keep in mind that the performance difference between these approaches may be negligible for simple cloning tasks, but it's essential to consider factors like memory usage and overhead when choosing a method.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is provided in JSON format, which outlines two scripts: `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`. The `Script Preparation Code` defines an object `bob` with various properties, including nested objects. The `Html Preparation Code` includes a reference to the Lodash library.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares three different approaches for cloning the `bob` object:

1. **Vanilla JavaScript**: This approach uses a custom function `cloneObject` that recursively clones the object using its constructor and properties.
2. **JSON.parse**: This approach uses the `JSON.parse` method to clone the object by stringifying it, parsing it back as JSON, and then converting the resulting JSON string back to an object.
3. **Lodash**: This approach uses the Lodash library's `cloneDeep` function to deep-clone the object.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Vanilla JavaScript**:
	* Pros: Easy to implement, no external dependencies required.
	* Cons: May be slower due to its iterative nature and potential performance overhead.
2. **JSON.parse**:
	* Pros: Simple and fast, as it leverages the built-in `JSON` object.
	* Cons: May not work correctly for nested objects with circular references or non-serializable properties.
3. **Lodash**:
	* Pros: Provides a robust and efficient way to clone objects, especially for deep cloning.
	* Cons: Requires an external dependency (Lodash library).

**Library and Its Purpose**

The Lodash library is used in the benchmark to provide a convenient and efficient way to perform deep cloning of complex objects.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None mentioned in this specific benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When testing benchmarking results, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* **Platform and browser**: The benchmark was run on Chrome 53 on a Mac with OS X 10.11.6.
* **Device platform**: This may affect the performance of the browser or rendering engine.
* **Number of executions per second**: A higher value indicates faster performance.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches for cloning objects in JavaScript include:

* Using the `Object.assign` method with a deep copy function (e.g., `deepcopy` from the `lodash` library).
* Utilizing libraries like `json-stringify-safe` or `json-deep-clone`.
* Implementing custom recursive functions similar to the vanilla JavaScript approach.

Related benchmarks:

testingCloneObject2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: vanila vs JSON.parse vs lodash

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result