Benchmark: Deep cloning of arrays

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6]

Tests:

JSON clone
JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(arr))
loadash clone
_.cloneDeep(arr)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON clone
loadash 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 is being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The test consists of two individual test cases that measure the performance of creating a deep clone of an array. The array is defined in the "Script Preparation Code" section of the benchmark definition:

`var arr = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6]`

**Options compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(arr))`
2. `_.cloneDeep(arr)`

These two functions aim to create a deep copy of the array.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

### 1. JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(arr))

* **Pros:**
	+ Simple and widely supported.
	+ Works with most data types, including objects and arrays.
* **Cons:**
	+ Can be slower due to the extra parsing step.
	+ Not suitable for creating deep copies of complex objects or arrays.

### 2. _.cloneDeep(arr) (using Lodash library)

* **Pros:**
	+ Designed specifically for creating deep copies, making it faster and more efficient.
	+ Supports advanced data structures like maps, sets, and even functions.
* **Cons:**
	+ Requires the Lodash library, which adds an extra dependency.
	+ May not be supported in older browsers or environments.

**Library:**

The `_.cloneDeep(arr)` function is part of the Lodash library. Lodash is a popular utility library that provides a set of functions for common tasks, such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this case, the `_` alias refers to the Lodash object.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmark tests. The focus is on comparing the performance of different cloning methods.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark uses a simple array as input, which is likely chosen for simplicity and to isolate the effects of each cloning method.
* The test only measures the time it takes to create a deep clone of the array, without considering other aspects like memory usage or garbage collection.
* The use of Lodash's `_.cloneDeep` function introduces an external dependency that may not be desirable in all scenarios.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative cloning methods, here are a few examples:

1. Using the spread operator (`{...arr}`) to create a shallow copy.
2. Implementing a recursive function to clone the array manually.
3. Using a library like `immer` or `deepcopy` that provides more advanced cloning capabilities.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, and it's essential to evaluate their trade-offs before choosing one over the other.

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/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JSON clone	3016123.0 Ops/sec
loadash clone	2464475.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Deep cloning of arrays (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JSON clone vs loadash clone

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JSON clone

loadash 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):