Benchmark: Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone test 3

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var MyObject = {
  description: 'Creates a deep copy of source, which should be an object or an array.',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
  jayson: {
    stringify: 'JSON.stringify() method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string....',
    parse: 'JSON.parse() method parses a JSON string...'
  }
};

var myCopy = null;

var stringified = JSON.stringify(MyObject)

Tests:

Lodash cloneDeep
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
Json clone
myCopy = JSON.parse(stringified);
Json stringify
myCopy = JSON.stringify(MyObject)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash cloneDeep
Json clone
Json stringify

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.77 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash cloneDeep	591430.7 Ops/sec
Json clone	713055.1 Ops/sec
Json stringify	620702.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three different approaches to create a deep copy of an object in JavaScript:

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**: Uses the `cloneDeep` function from the Lodash library to create a deep copy of the input object.
2. **JSON Clone**: Uses the `JSON.parse()` and `JSON.stringify()` methods to manually create a deep copy of the input object.
3. **JSON Stringify**: Uses the `JSON.stringify()` method alone to create a string representation of the input object, without actually creating a new object.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches on a sample input object `MyObject`, which contains nested objects and arrays (`jayson` property).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**:
	* Pros: Easy to use, efficient, and produces accurate results.
	* Cons: Requires an external library (Lodash) and may not be suitable for all environments.
2. **JSON Clone**:
	* Pros: No external libraries required, can be used in most environments.
	* Cons: Manual implementation can lead to errors or performance issues.
3. **JSON Stringify**:
	* Pros: Simple and lightweight, no external libraries required.
	* Cons: Does not create a new object, only produces a string representation.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses the Lodash library for the `cloneDeep` function.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None mentioned in this explanation. However, it's worth noting that the `JSON.parse()` and `JSON.stringify()` methods use the ECMAScript 5 (ES5) syntax for parsing JSON strings.

**Other Alternatives**

For creating deep copies of objects, other alternatives include:

* **`Object.assign()`**: Can be used to create a shallow copy of an object, but not suitable for deep copying.
* **`Array.prototype.slice()`**: Can be used to create a shallow copy of arrays, but not suitable for deep copying.
* **Custom implementation using `for...in` loops and recursive functions**: This approach can provide more control over the copying process, but may lead to errors or performance issues if not implemented correctly.

The benchmark provides a concise way to compare these different approaches, making it easier to choose the best method for specific use cases.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone test 3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Json clone vs Json stringify

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Json clone

Json stringify

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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