Benchmark: Lodash clone comparison vs JSON comparison

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {
  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...'
  }
}

Tests:

Lodash cloneDeep
const before = _.cloneDeep(obj) obj.description = 'this has changed' const after = _.cloneDeep(obj) const hasChanged = _.isEqual(before, after)
Json clone
const before = JSON.stringify(obj) obj.description = 'this has changed' const after = JSON.stringify(obj) const hasChanged = before === after

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash cloneDeep
Json clone

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to create a copy of an object in JavaScript:

1. Using `lodash` library (specifically, `_.cloneDeep`) to create a deep copy of the object.
2. Serializing the original object using `JSON.stringify()` and then comparing it with the modified object.

**Lodash Library**

The `lodash` library is a popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript. It provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, object manipulation, and more. In this benchmark, `_.cloneDeep()` is used to create a deep copy of the object.

Pros of using Lodash:

* Provides a robust and efficient way to create deep copies of objects.
* Reduces the risk of modifying original data inadvertently.

Cons of using Lodash:

* Adds an external dependency (the library itself).
* May introduce additional overhead due to the library's functionality.

**JSON Serialization**

The `JSON.stringify()` method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string, which can be used for storage or transmission. In this benchmark, it's used to serialize the original object and compare it with the modified object.

Pros of using JSON serialization:

* Fast and lightweight.
* No external dependencies required.
* Widely supported across different platforms and browsers.

Cons of using JSON serialization:

* Only creates a shallow copy of the object (not suitable for complex data structures).
* May not preserve object metadata or other properties.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* Performance: `JSON.stringify()` is generally faster than creating a deep copy with Lodash.
* Data complexity: If you're working with simple objects, `JSON.stringify()` might be sufficient. For complex data structures, `_.cloneDeep()` provides a more robust solution.
* Code readability: Using `_.cloneDeep()` can make your code more readable and maintainable, as it clearly expresses the intent of creating a deep copy.

**Benchmark Results**

The provided benchmark results show that `JSON.stringify()` outperforms `_.cloneDeep()` in terms of execution speed. This might be due to the overhead introduced by Lodash's deep copying algorithm.

Keep in mind that these results may vary depending on the specific use case, data complexity, and JavaScript engine used. It's essential to consider your specific requirements and weigh the trade-offs between performance, readability, and maintainability when choosing an approach.

As for other alternatives, you might want to consider:

* Using `Object.assign()` or `Array.prototype.slice()` to create shallow copies of objects.
* Implementing a custom deep copying function using recursion or iteration.
* Utilizing other libraries like `immer` or `ramda` that provide similar functionality to Lodash.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash cloneDeep	367620.2 Ops/sec
Json clone	580624.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash clone comparison vs JSON comparison (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Json clone

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Json clone

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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