Benchmark: Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone forkeddd

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;

Tests:

Native structuredClone
myCopy = structuredClone(MyObject);
Lodash cloneDeep
myCopy = structuredClone(MyObject);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native structuredClone
Lodash cloneDeep

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to create a deep copy of an object: `structuredClone` (a native JavaScript function) and `cloneDeep` from the Lodash library. The benchmark measures which approach is faster in terms of execution speed.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Native `structuredClone`**: This is a new function introduced in ECMAScript 2022, which creates a deep copy of an object by serializing it to a JSON string and then parsing the string back into an object. The `structuredClone` function is designed to be efficient and safe for use with any JavaScript object.
2. **Lodash `cloneDeep`**: This is a popular library function that creates a deep copy of an object by recursively cloning each property of the original object.

**Pros and Cons**

**Native `structuredClone`:**

Pros:

* Newer and potentially more efficient than traditional deep copying methods
* Designed to be safe for use with any JavaScript object
* Part of the standard ECMAScript specification, making it more predictable and maintainable

Cons:

* Currently only supported in modern browsers (Chrome 117 is used in this benchmark)
* May not work as expected in older browsers or environments that don't support the `structuredClone` function

**Lodash `cloneDeep`:**

Pros:

* Widely adopted and well-tested library function
* Works with a broad range of JavaScript objects, including custom objects and arrays
* Can be used in older browsers or environments that don't support `structuredClone`

Cons:

* Potentially slower than native `structuredClone` due to the overhead of serializing and parsing the object
* May not be as efficient for very large objects

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object manipulation, and more. The `cloneDeep` function is one of the most commonly used functions in Lodash, and it's designed to create deep copies of objects.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in using alternative methods for creating deep copies of objects, here are a few options:

* `Object.assign()`: This method can be used to create a shallow copy of an object, but it's not designed to work with complex objects that require recursive cloning.
* `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))`: This method can be used to create a deep copy of an object, but it's slower and less efficient than the native `structuredClone` function or Lodash `cloneDeep`.
* Custom implementation: You can write your own custom function to recursively clone objects using a loop or recursion.

In summary, the benchmark is comparing two approaches to creating deep copies of objects: native `structuredClone` (a new JavaScript function) and Lodash `cloneDeep`. The results will help determine which approach is faster and more efficient in practice.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/117.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 117 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native structuredClone	501904.9 Ops/sec
Lodash cloneDeep	498439.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone forkeddd (version: 0)

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/structuredClone

Comparing performance of: Native structuredClone vs Lodash cloneDeep

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native structuredClone

Lodash cloneDeep

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):