Benchmark: JSON.stringify vs structuredClone 3

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;

​x
 
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;

Tests:

JSON.stringify
var obj = { [Math.random(2000).toString()]: Math.random(2000).toString(), ...MyObject, [Math.random(2000).toString()]: Math.random(2000).toString(), }; myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj));
var obj = {
[Math.random(2000).toString()]: Math.random(2000).toString(),
...MyObject,
[Math.random(2000).toString()]: Math.random(2000).toString(),
};
myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj));
structuredClone
var obj = { [Math.random(2000).toString()]: Math.random(2000).toString(), ...MyObject, [Math.random(2000).toString()]: Math.random(2000).toString(), }; myCopy = structuredClone(obj);
var obj = {
[Math.random(2000).toString()]: Math.random(2000).toString(),
...MyObject,
[Math.random(2000).toString()]: Math.random(2000).toString(),
};
myCopy = structuredClone(obj);

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
JSON.stringify
structuredClone

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 113 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JSON.stringify	90733.9 Ops/sec
structuredClone	82405.9 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

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

Benchmark Overview

The benchmark compares the performance of JSON.stringify() and structuredClone() in creating a deep copy of an object. The object has some randomly generated properties, including arrays and a nested object with a string value.

Options Compared

Two options are compared:

JSON.stringify(): This method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string, which is then parsed back into a JavaScript object using JSON.parse(). The resulting object is not a deep copy of the original.
structuredClone(): This is a relatively new function introduced in JavaScript 2020 (ECMAScript 2020) as part of the WebAssembly feature. It creates a deep clone of an object, including arrays and nested objects.

Pros and Cons

JSON.stringify():

Pros:

Widely supported and well-established.
Can be used to serialize data for storage or transmission.

Cons:

Not a deep copy, as it only serializes the object's values, not its references. This can lead to unexpected behavior when modifying the copied object.
Can be slower than structuredClone() due to the additional parsing step.

structuredClone():

Pros:

Creates a true deep copy of the object, including arrays and nested objects.
Optimized for performance compared to JSON.stringify().
Newer and more modern function.

Cons:

Less widely supported (only available in JavaScript 2020+).
Requires special consideration when working with older browsers or environments.

Library and Special JS Feature

In this benchmark, no specific library is used. However, note that the use of structuredClone() relies on a relatively new JavaScript feature.

Test Case Analysis

The two test cases are identical, but they differ in the implementation:

JSON.stringify(): This test case uses the JSON.stringify() method to create a copy of the object.
structuredClone(): This test case uses the structuredClone() function to create a deep clone of the object.

Both tests aim to measure the performance difference between these two approaches.

Other Alternatives

If you need an alternative for creating deep copies, consider using:

Lodash's cloneDeep() method: A popular library that provides a safe and efficient way to create deep clones.
Underscore.js's _cloneDeep() function: Another widely used library that offers similar functionality.

These alternatives can provide more flexibility and control over the cloning process, but they may introduce additional dependencies or complexity.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of `JSON.stringify()` and `structuredClone()` in creating a deep copy of an object. The object has some randomly generated properties, including arrays and a nested object with a string value.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **`JSON.stringify()`**: This method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string, which is then parsed back into a JavaScript object using `JSON.parse()`. The resulting object is not a deep copy of the original.
2. **`structuredClone()`**: This is a relatively new function introduced in JavaScript 2020 (ECMAScript 2020) as part of the WebAssembly feature. It creates a deep clone of an object, including arrays and nested objects.

**Pros and Cons**

**`JSON.stringify()`**:

Pros:

* Widely supported and well-established.
* Can be used to serialize data for storage or transmission.

Cons:

* Not a deep copy, as it only serializes the object's values, not its references. This can lead to unexpected behavior when modifying the copied object.
* Can be slower than `structuredClone()` due to the additional parsing step.

**`structuredClone()`**:

Pros:

* Creates a true deep copy of the object, including arrays and nested objects.
* Optimized for performance compared to `JSON.stringify()`.
* Newer and more modern function.

Cons:

* Less widely supported (only available in JavaScript 2020+).
* Requires special consideration when working with older browsers or environments.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used. However, note that the use of `structuredClone()` relies on a relatively new JavaScript feature.

**Test Case Analysis**

The two test cases are identical, but they differ in the implementation:

1. **`JSON.stringify()`**: This test case uses the `JSON.stringify()` method to create a copy of the object.
2. **`structuredClone()`**: This test case uses the `structuredClone()` function to create a deep clone of the object.

Both tests aim to measure the performance difference between these two approaches.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need an alternative for creating deep copies, consider using:

1. **Lodash's `cloneDeep()` method**: A popular library that provides a safe and efficient way to create deep clones.
2. **Underscore.js's `_cloneDeep()` function**: Another widely used library that offers similar functionality.

These alternatives can provide more flexibility and control over the cloning process, but they may introduce additional dependencies or complexity.

Related benchmarks:

JSON.stringify vs structuredClone 3 (version: 0)

JSON.stringify vs structuredClone

Comparing performance of: JSON.stringify vs structuredClone

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JSON.stringify

structuredClone

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):