Benchmark: JSON Parse vs StructuredClone bigger object

Script Preparation code:

var object = {
    type: "FeatureCollection",
    features: [{
            type: "Feature",
            properties: {},
            geometry: {
                type: "Point",
                coordinates: [4.483605784808901, 51.907188449679325]
            }
        },
        {
            "type": "Feature",
            "properties": {},
            "geometry": {
                "type": "Polygon",
                "coordinates": [
                    [
                        [3.974369110811523, 51.907355547778565],
                        [4.173944459020191, 51.86237166892457],
                        [4.3808076710679416, 51.848867725914914],
                        [4.579822414365026, 51.874487141880024],
                        [4.534413416598767, 51.9495302480326],
                        [4.365110733567974, 51.92360787140825],
                        [4.179550508127079, 51.97336560819281],
                        [4.018096293847009, 52.00236546429852],
                        [3.9424146309028174, 51.97681895676649],
                        [3.974369110811523, 51.907355547778565]
                    ]
                ]
            }
        }
    ]
};

var copy = null;

Tests:

strucutredClone
copy = structuredClone(object);
JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())
copy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(object));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
strucutredClone
JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and explanation of the options being compared.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The test case is designed to compare the performance of two methods:

1. `structuredClone` (also known as `JSON Structured Clone`)
2. `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())`

Both methods are used to clone a JSON object, but they work differently and have different implications on the original data.

**Options being compared:**

*   **`structuredClone(object);`**: This method creates a new object that is a deep copy of the input object. It is designed to preserve the original structure and properties of the object, including nested objects and arrays. The `structuredClone()` function is part of the ECMAScript 2020 standard.
*   **`JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(object));`**: This method uses the JSON.stringify() method to serialize the object into a string, and then parses that string back into an object using the JSON.parse() method. While it can achieve the same result as `structuredClone()`, this approach has some limitations and potential issues, such as losing special values like NaN or Infinity.

**Pros and Cons:**

*   **`structuredClone(object);`**:
    *   Pros:
        +   Preserves the original structure and properties of the object.
        +   Supports nested objects and arrays.
        +   Designed for deep copying, which is a common requirement in many applications.
    *   Cons:
        +   May have performance implications due to its recursive nature.
*   **`JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(object));`**:
    +   Pros:
        -   Simple and straightforward implementation.
        -   Can be faster than `structuredClone()` for small inputs.
    *   Cons:
        -   Loses special values like NaN or Infinity during the cloning process.
        -   Does not preserve the original structure of deeply nested objects.
        -   Can lead to infinite loops if the input object contains circular references.

**Library and purpose:**

*   `structuredClone()`: This function is part of the ECMAScript 2020 standard, which means it's a built-in JavaScript feature. It's designed specifically for deep copying JSON objects, preserving their structure and properties.
*   `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(object))`: This method uses two separate functions: `stringify()` to serialize an object into a string, and `parse()` to parse that string back into an object. While it achieves the same result as `structuredClone()`, it's not as efficient or robust.

**Special JS features and syntax:**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark definition other than `structuredClone()` being compared against `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())`. However, if you were to modify the input objects to include special values like NaN or Infinity, these would need to be preserved during cloning.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:129.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/129.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 129 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
strucutredClone	128285.9 Ops/sec
JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())	92671.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JSON Parse vs StructuredClone bigger object (version: 0)

Comparses JSON.parse(JSON.stringify()) vs structuredClone on a bigger JSON object

Comparing performance of: strucutredClone vs JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

strucutredClone

JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):