Benchmark: JSON.stringify vs structuredClone 2dsfasr12qe12321312331312321 2312312

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:

JSON.stringify
myCopy = structuredClone(JSON.stringify(MyObject));
structuredClone
myCopy = structuredClone(MyObject);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON.stringify
structuredClone

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JSON.stringify	1049695.6 Ops/sec
structuredClone	714738.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 5 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark evaluates and compares the performance of two methods for creating deep copies of JavaScript objects: `JSON.stringify` combined with `structuredClone`, and `structuredClone` directly. Let's break down the components and considerations of this benchmark.

### Options Compared

1. **Benchmark Method: `JSON.stringify` with `structuredClone`**
   - **Code**: `myCopy = structuredClone(JSON.stringify(MyObject));`
   - This approach first converts the `MyObject` into a JSON string using `JSON.stringify` and then uses `structuredClone` to create a deep copy of that string.

2. **Benchmark Method: `structuredClone` Directly**
   - **Code**: `myCopy = structuredClone(MyObject);`
   - In this method, `structuredClone` is called directly on the `MyObject`, taking advantage of its built-in functionality for deep copying.

### Pros and Cons of Each Approach

#### JSON.stringify with structuredClone
- **Pros**:
  - It can handle basic types, but its primary purpose is serialization (i.e., converting an object to a string).
  - It can convert objects to JSON string format which can be useful for data transmission (e.g., over networks).
- **Cons**:
  - It cannot clone non-serializable types (like functions, `undefined`, symbols, etc.).
  - Involves an unnecessary conversion to string and then back to an object, which is less efficient in terms of performance compared to direct cloning.
  - Increases complexity with an extra layer of processing, which could introduce performance overhead.

#### StructuredClone Directly
- **Pros**:
  - Designed specifically for deep copying JavaScript objects, it supports a wider variety of types, including arrays, objects, and certain special types like `Date` and `Map`.
  - More efficient as it avoids the intermediate step of serialization to JSON, leading to better performance in terms of execution speed.
- **Cons**:
  - It may not serialize objects to string, which is sometimes needed for data interchange protocols.
  - As of now (October 2023), browser support for `structuredClone` is generally good, but it's always wise to check compatibility for older browsers.

### Other Considerations

- **Browser Support**: While modern browsers (like Chrome) support both methods, developers should be aware of how each method behaves on older browsers. `JSON.stringify` is more widely supported but also less efficient for deep cloning.
- **Use of Libraries**: Neither of the methods uses any third-party libraries but are built-in features of the JavaScript language. However, should you need additional functionality for deep cloning, libraries like `lodash.cloneDeep` are commonly used in practice as they provide additional features and handle edge cases that both methods may not address.

### Alternatives

- **Lodash's cloneDeep**: A popular utility library that provides a `cloneDeep` method capable of deeply cloning any JavaScript object efficiently, handling many edge cases and data types.
  
- **Manual Deep Copying**: Implementing a custom solution by recursively copying object properties can be an alternative but often leads to complications, especially with circular references and complex types.

### Conclusion

This benchmark clearly demonstrates the performance differences between `JSON.stringify` and `structuredClone`. For the specific task of deep cloning, `structuredClone` is the more effective and efficient choice, while `JSON.stringify`, although useful in other contexts, introduces unnecessary overhead when used solely for deep copying. Software engineers, regardless of their familiarity with JavaScript, are encouraged to consider the appropriate use cases, performance implications, and limitations of each method when deciding which to utilize.

Related benchmarks:

JSON.stringify vs structuredClone 2dsfasr12qe12321312331312321 2312312 (version: 1)

JSON.stringify vs structuredClone 2dsfasr12qe12321312331312321

Comparing performance of: JSON.stringify vs structuredClone

Created: 5 days ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JSON.stringify

structuredClone

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 5 days ago):