Benchmark: Lodash cloneDeep vs Json clone (deeply nested)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.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...',
  },
  deeplyNested: {
    a: { b: { c: { d: { e: { f: { g: { h: { i: '10 levels deep' } } } } } } } }
  },
};

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

Lodash cloneDeep
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
Json clone
myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash cloneDeep
Json clone

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 4 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares two methods for creating a deep copy of an object: `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject))` (using the built-in `JSON` API) and `_.cloneDeep(MyObject)` (using the Lodash library).

**What are we testing?**

We're testing which method is faster and more efficient in terms of execution speed.

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject))**: This method uses the built-in `JSON` API to create a deep copy of the object. It serializes the object, converts it to a string using `JSON.stringify()`, and then parses the resulting string back into an object using `JSON.parse()`. This approach can be slow for large objects due to the overhead of serialization and deserialization.
2. **_.cloneDeep(MyObject)**: This method uses the Lodash library's `cloneDeep()` function, which is specifically designed for creating deep copies of objects.

**Pros and Cons**

* **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject))**:
	+ Pros: built-in API, easy to implement
	+ Cons: slow for large objects due to serialization overhead
* **_.cloneDeep(MyObject)**:
	+ Pros: optimized for deep copy operations, efficient
	+ Cons: requires Lodash library

**Library usage**

The benchmark uses the Lodash library (`https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js`).

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

There are other methods for creating deep copies of objects, such as:

* Using `Object.assign()` and recursively copying properties
* Using a recursive function to manually copy object properties
* Using a library like Immutable.js

However, these alternatives may not be as efficient or optimized as the Lodash `cloneDeep()` method.

In summary, this benchmark compares two methods for creating deep copies of objects: using the built-in `JSON` API and using the Lodash library's `cloneDeep()`. The Lodash approach is likely to be faster and more efficient due to its optimization for deep copy operations.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/98.0.4758.121 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 98 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash cloneDeep	166234.5 Ops/sec
Json clone	211285.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash cloneDeep vs Json clone (deeply nested) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Json clone

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Json clone

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 4 days ago):