Benchmark: deep clone JSON - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.10/lodash.min.js'></script>

Tests:

json stringify
var obj = {a: "hello", c: "test", po: 33, arr: [1, 2, 3, 4], anotherObj: {a: 33, str: "whazzup"}}; var obj2 = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj));
lodash deep clone
var obj = {a: "hello", c: "test", po: 33, arr: [1, 2, 3, 4], anotherObj: {a: 33, str: "whazzup"}}; var obj2 = _.clone(obj, true);
Object.assign
var obj = {a: "hello", c: "test", po: 33, arr: [1, 2, 3, 4], anotherObj: {a: 33, str: "whazzup"}}; var obj2 = Object.assign({}, obj);
Ramda clone
var obj = {a: "hello", c: "test", po: 33, arr: [1, 2, 3, 4], anotherObj: {a: 33, str: "whazzup"}}; var obj2 = R.clone(obj);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
json stringify
lodash deep clone
Object.assign
Ramda clone

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/81.0.4044.113 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 81 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
json stringify	290723.2 Ops/sec
lodash deep clone	919370.3 Ops/sec
Object.assign	2818468.8 Ops/sec
Ramda clone	419057.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a set of instructions that outlines how to prepare for the test. In this case, it defines an object `obj` with various properties (e.g., strings, numbers, arrays) and another object `anotherObj`. The goal is to create a deep clone of `obj`.

**Options Compared**

Four different approaches are being tested:

1. **JSON Stringification**: This involves converting the original object to a JSON string using `JSON.stringify()` and then parsing it back into an object using `JSON.parse()`.
2. **Lodash Deep Clone**: This uses the `_.clone()` function from Lodash, which is a popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript.
3. **Object Assign**: This uses the `Object.assign()` method to create a new object by copying the properties of the original object into it.
4. **Ramda Clone**: This uses the `R.clone()` function from Ramda, another popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **JSON Stringification**:
	* Pros: Simple to implement, widely supported by most browsers.
	* Cons: Can be slow due to the overhead of serializing and deserializing the object, may not preserve all property metadata.
2. **Lodash Deep Clone**: (Note: The benchmark actually uses `_.cloneDeep()`, not just `_`.)
	* Pros: Preserves all property metadata, can handle complex data structures like arrays and objects with circular references.
	* Cons: Requires an external library (Lodash), may have slower performance due to the overhead of function calls.
3. **Object Assign**: (Note: The benchmark actually uses `Object.assign()` directly on the object, not creating a new object.)
	* Pros: Fast, lightweight, and widely supported by modern browsers.
	* Cons: Does not preserve all property metadata, may not handle circular references well.
4. **Ramda Clone**:
	* Pros: Preserves all property metadata, can handle complex data structures like arrays and objects with circular references.
	* Cons: Requires an external library (Ramda), may have slower performance due to the overhead of function calls.

**Library Descriptions**

1. **Lodash**: A popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript, providing a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, object iteration, and more.
2. **Ramda**: Another popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript, providing a different set of functions than Lodash but with similar goals.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark, aside from the external libraries mentioned above.

**Other Alternatives**

For creating deep clones, other alternatives to the ones mentioned above include:

1. **Array.prototype.slice() + Object.assign()**: Creates a shallow clone of an array by using `Array.prototype.slice()` to create a new array and then uses `Object.assign()` to copy properties from the original object.
2. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))**: Similar to JSON stringification, but creates a deep clone instead of a shallow one.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs in terms of performance, memory usage, or compatibility with older browsers.

Related benchmarks:

deep clone JSON (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: json stringify vs lodash deep clone vs Object.assign vs Ramda clone

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

json stringify

lodash deep clone

Object.assign

Ramda clone

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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