Benchmark: Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone vs Ramda Clone vs hand rolled vs spread vs obj.assign vs structuredClone

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/clone/2.1.2/clone.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:

Lodash cloneDeep
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
Json clone
myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject));
Ramda clone
myCopy = R.clone(MyObject);
hand rolled
const cp=(obj)=>"object" === typeof obj ? Object.fromEntries(Object.entries(obj).map(([k,v])=>[k,cp(v)])) : obj myCopy = cp(MyObject)
spread
myCopy = {...MyObject}
obj.assign
myCopy = Object.assign({}, MyObject)
structuredClone
myCopy = structuredClone(MyObject);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash cloneDeep
Json clone
Ramda clone
hand rolled
spread
obj.assign
structuredClone

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case that compares six different methods for creating a deep copy of an object:

1. Lodash `cloneDeep`
2. JSON clone (`JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())`)
3. Ramda `clone`
4. Hand-rolled implementation (using `Object.fromEntries` and recursion)
5. Spread operator (`{...MyObject}`)
6. `Object.assign({}, MyObject)`

Each test case is defined in the individual test cases array, which includes a benchmark definition code snippet that demonstrates how to create a deep copy of the input object using each method.

**Options compared:**

The comparison involves the following options:

* Lodash `cloneDeep`
* JSON clone (`JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())`)
* Ramda `clone`
* Hand-rolled implementation
* Spread operator (`{...MyObject}`)
* `Object.assign({}, MyObject)`

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Lodash `cloneDeep`**: Pros:
	* Well-tested and maintained library.
	* Provides a simple and efficient way to create deep copies.
Cons:
	* Adds dependency on the Lodash library.
2. **JSON clone (`JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())`)**: Pros:
	* Lightweight and easy to implement.
Cons:
	* Can fail if the input object contains functions or other non-standard values.
3. **Ramda `clone`**: Pros:
	* Similar to Lodash `cloneDeep`, but with a smaller dependency footprint (since Ramda is often used as a utility library).
Cons:
	* May not be as well-tested or maintained as Lodash.
4. **Hand-rolled implementation**: Pros:
	* Provides a deep understanding of the underlying mechanics.
Cons:
	* Can be error-prone and time-consuming to implement correctly.
5. **Spread operator (`{...MyObject}`)**: Pros:
	* Simple and concise way to create shallow copies.
Cons:
	* Does not work for nested objects or arrays.
6. **`Object.assign({}, MyObject)`**: Pros:
	* Convenient and easy to use for shallow copies.
Cons:
	* Can be slow due to the overhead of property iteration.

**Libraries and their purpose:**

1. Lodash: A utility library that provides a wide range of functions for working with JavaScript data structures, including deep copying (`cloneDeep`).
2. Ramda: A functional programming library that provides a set of immutable and predictable functions for working with data.
3. Clone (JSON clone): A lightweight library that provides a simple way to create copies of JSON objects.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

The benchmark test case uses the spread operator (`{...MyObject}`) to create shallow copies, which is a relatively recent addition to JavaScript. The hand-rolled implementation also uses modern JavaScript features like `Object.fromEntries` and recursive functions.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives for creating deep copies in JavaScript include:

1. **Deep copy libraries**: Other libraries that provide deep copying functionality, such as `lodash-deep` or `lodash-clonedeep`.
2. **JSON serialization/deserialization**: Using JSON serialization techniques to create a string representation of the object and then deserializing it back into an object.
3. **Array methods**: For arrays, using methods like `Array.prototype.slice()` or `Array.prototype.concat()` can be used to create shallow copies.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash cloneDeep	871915.7 Ops/sec
Json clone	656257.0 Ops/sec
Ramda clone	1365004.6 Ops/sec
hand rolled	796986.0 Ops/sec
spread	8569201.0 Ops/sec
obj.assign	3965943.8 Ops/sec
structuredClone	339913.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone vs Ramda Clone vs hand rolled vs spread vs obj.assign vs structuredClone (version: 0)

just benchmarking things

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Json clone vs Ramda clone vs hand rolled vs spread vs obj.assign vs structuredClone

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Json clone

Ramda clone

hand rolled

spread

obj.assign

structuredClone

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):