Benchmark: lodash deepclone

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var Copy = () => {
  return {
    description: () => {
        return 'Creates a deep copy of source, which should be an object or an array.'
    },
    myNumber: () => {
        return new Date()
    }
  }
};

var Copies = [Copy(), Copy(), Copy()]

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

cloneDeep
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(Copies);
JSON
myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(Copies));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
cloneDeep
JSON

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/96.0.4664.55 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 96 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
cloneDeep	370689.9 Ops/sec
JSON	688617.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Description**

The test case is designed to measure the performance of two different methods for creating a deep copy of an array in JavaScript: using `lodash.cloneDeep` and using the `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` method.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Lodash's cloneDeep**: This method creates a deep copy of an object or array by recursively cloning all its properties.
2. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())**: This method creates a new object with copied values from the original object, using JSON serialization and deserialization.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Lodash's cloneDeep**:
	* Pros:
		+ Specifically designed for deep copying objects and arrays.
		+ Handles complex data structures like nested arrays and objects.
		+ Often faster than manual JSON parsing and stringification.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires the `lodash` library, which may not be included in all projects.
		+ May have overhead due to the size of the `lodash` library.
2. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())**:
	* Pros:
		+ Lightweight and doesn't require any external libraries.
		+ Easy to understand and implement manually.
	* Cons:
		+ Only works for simple data structures (arrays, objects).
		+ May not handle complex data structures like nested arrays or objects correctly.
		+ Can be slower than `cloneDeep` due to the overhead of JSON serialization and deserialization.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, the `lodash` library is used for its `cloneDeep` method. Lodash is a popular utility library that provides various functions for tasks like string manipulation, array and object manipulation, and more.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When creating benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors like:

* **Language-specific optimizations**: Some languages have built-in optimizations for specific tasks, which may not be available in other languages.
* **Platform and browser variations**: Different platforms (e.g., desktop vs. mobile) and browsers may have varying performance characteristics, which should be taken into account when running benchmarks.
* **Test data and noise**: The quality of the test data can significantly impact benchmark results. Noisy or biased test data can skew results.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to `lodash.cloneDeep` or `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())`, here are a few options:

1. **Manual implementation**: You could implement your own deep copying function using recursive functions and object property iteration.
2. **Other libraries**: Other libraries like `immer` or `fast-json-stitch` provide deep cloning functionality, which may be faster or more efficient than `lodash.cloneDeep`.
3. **Built-in methods**: Some languages (e.g., JavaScript) have built-in methods for creating copies of objects and arrays, like `Array.prototype.slice()` or `Object.assign()`.

Related benchmarks:

lodash deepclone (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: cloneDeep vs JSON

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

cloneDeep

JSON

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):