Benchmark: lodash clonedeep vs json.parse() an already stringified object

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...'
  }
}

var str = JSON.stringify(obj)

Tests:

CloneDeep
_.cloneDeep(obj)
JSON.parse on already stringified object
JSON.parse(str)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
CloneDeep
JSON.parse on already stringified object

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 explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The website "MeasureThat.net" provides a JSON definition for a benchmark, which is used to compare the performance of two approaches: `_.cloneDeep` from Lodash and `JSON.parse()` on an already stringified object. The benchmark aims to measure which approach is faster.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines an object `obj` with nested properties, including a property `jayson` that contains another object with `stringify` and `parse` properties. The `stringify` property is set to the string representation of the object using `JSON.stringify()`, while the `parse` property is not used in this benchmark.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a link to load the Lodash library, specifically version 4.17.5.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **CloneDeep**: Measures the performance of `_.cloneDeep(obj)`, which creates a deep copy of the object.
2. **JSON.parse on already stringified object**: Measures the performance of parsing the already stringified object using `JSON.parse(str)`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Lodash's _.cloneDeep()**: Creates a deep copy of the object, which can be useful in scenarios where you need to preserve the original data structure.
2. **JSON.parse() on an already stringified object**: Parses the JSON string representation of the object, which is faster but may lose some information about the original object's structure.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are the pros and cons of each approach:

* `_.cloneDeep(obj)`:
	+ Pros: Creates a deep copy of the object, preserving its structure and data.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than parsing an already stringified object.
* `JSON.parse(str)`:
	+ Pros: Faster than creating a deep copy of the object.
	+ Cons: May lose some information about the original object's structure.

**Library - Lodash**

Lodash is a JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object creation, and more. `_.cloneDeep()` is one of its functions that creates a deep copy of an object.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. The tests only rely on standard JavaScript features.

**Other Considerations**

Other considerations when working with stringified objects include:

* Performance: When working with large amounts of data, parsing an already stringified object can be faster than creating a deep copy.
* Data Integrity: Losing information about the original object's structure can lead to unexpected behavior or errors downstream.
* Code Quality: Creating a deep copy of an object using `_.cloneDeep()` ensures code readability and maintainability.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for creating deep copies of objects include:

* Using the spread operator (`{ ...obj }`) on JavaScript objects
* Using `Object.assign()`
* Using `lodash's clone()` function (not `_cloneDeep()`, which is used in this benchmark)
* Implementing a custom copying function using recursion or iteration

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs, and the choice of which one to use depends on the specific requirements of your project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
CloneDeep	1808200.6 Ops/sec
JSON.parse on already stringified object	2364639.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash clonedeep vs json.parse() an already stringified object (version: 0)

Comparing lodash clonedeep vs json.parse() an already stringified object

Comparing performance of: CloneDeep vs JSON.parse on already stringified object

Created: 9 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

CloneDeep

JSON.parse on already stringified object

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):