Benchmark: RFDC clone vs Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone vs recursive deep copy 3

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/rfdc@1.1.4/index.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.20/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

function recursiveDeepCopy(obj) {
  return Object.keys(obj).reduce((v, d) => Object.assign(v, {
    [d]: (obj[d].constructor === Object) ? recursiveDeepCopy(obj[d]) : obj[d]
  }), {});
}

var sampleObject = [{
        "id": "0001",
        "type": "donut",
        "name": "Cake",
        "ppu": 0.55,
        "batters": {
            "batter": [{
                    "id": "1001",
                    "type": "Regular"
                },
                {
                    "id": "1002",
                    "type": "Chocolate"
                },
                {
                    "id": "1003",
                    "type": "Blueberry"
                },
                {
                    "id": "1004",
                    "type": "Devil's Food"
                }
            ]
        },
        "topping": [{
                "id": "5001",
                "type": "None"
            },
            {
                "id": "5002",
                "type": "Glazed"
            },
            {
                "id": "5005",
                "type": "Sugar"
            },
            {
                "id": "5007",
                "type": "Powdered Sugar"
            },
            {
                "id": "5006",
                "type": "Chocolate with Sprinkles"
            },
            {
                "id": "5003",
                "type": "Chocolate"
            },
            {
                "id": "5004",
                "type": "Maple"
            }
        ]
    },
    {
        "id": "0002",
        "type": "donut",
        "name": "Raised",
        "ppu": 0.55,
        "batters": {
            "batter": [{
                "id": "1001",
                "type": "Regular"
            }]
        },
        "topping": [{
                "id": "5001",
                "type": "None"
            },
            {
                "id": "5002",
                "type": "Glazed"
            },
            {
                "id": "5005",
                "type": "Sugar"
            },
            {
                "id": "5003",
                "type": "Chocolate"
            },
            {
                "id": "5004",
                "type": "Maple"
            }
        ]
    },
    {
        "id": "0003",
        "type": "donut",
        "name": "Old Fashioned",
        "ppu": 0.55,
        "batters": {
            "batter": [{
                    "id": "1001",
                    "type": "Regular"
                },
                {
                    "id": "1002",
                    "type": "Chocolate"
                }
            ]
        },
        "topping": [{
                "id": "5001",
                "type": "None"
            },
            {
                "id": "5002",
                "type": "Glazed"
            },
            {
                "id": "5003",
                "type": "Chocolate"
            },
            {
                "id": "5004",
                "type": "Maple"
            }
        ]
    }
];

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

Lodash cloneDeep
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(sampleObject);
Json clone
myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(sampleObject));
RFDC copy
var clone = rfdc({circles: false}); myCopy = clone(sampleObject);
Recursive deep copy
myCopy = recursiveDeepCopy(sampleObject);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash cloneDeep
Json clone
RFDC copy
Recursive deep copy

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:89.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/89.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 89 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash cloneDeep	17847.8 Ops/sec
Json clone	56372.6 Ops/sec
RFDC copy	156077.1 Ops/sec
Recursive deep copy	156487.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, library usage, special JavaScript features, and alternative approaches.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of four methods to create a deep copy of an object:

1. `_.cloneDeep` from Lodash
2. `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify)` (a built-in method for JSON cloning)
3. `rfdc` (a custom library for recursive deep copying)
4. A custom recursive function (`recursiveDeepCopy`) implemented by the user

**Comparison of Methods**

Here's a brief overview of each method:

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**: Lodash provides a convenient and efficient way to create deep copies of objects using `_.cloneDeep`. This method is part of the Lodash library, which is widely used for functional programming tasks.
2. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify)**: This built-in JavaScript method uses JSON serialization and deserialization to create a deep copy of an object. While it works, this method can lead to unexpected behavior if the original object contains functions or undefined values.
3. **rfdc**: The `rfdc` library provides a recursive function for deep copying objects. It's designed to handle complex data structures with nested objects and arrays.
4. **Recursive Deep Copy (custom)**: The user-implemented `recursiveDeepCopy` function uses recursion to create a deep copy of the input object.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each method:

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**:
	* Pros: Efficient, easy to use, and widely supported.
	* Cons: Requires an additional dependency (Lodash).
2. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify)**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, easy to understand.
	* Cons: Can lead to unexpected behavior if the original object contains functions or undefined values.
3. **rfdc**:
	* Pros: Handles complex data structures well, flexible configuration options.
	* Cons: Requires an additional dependency (the `rfdc` library).
4. **Recursive Deep Copy (custom)**:
	* Pros: Customizable, no dependencies required.
	* Cons: More code to write and maintain.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses the following libraries:

1. Lodash (`_.cloneDeep`)
2. `rfdc`
3. No additional libraries are used for HTML preparation or JavaScript execution.

**Special JavaScript Features**

None of the methods rely on special JavaScript features beyond standard language support.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to create deep copies include:

1. Using a library like `lodash-es` (a smaller, ES6-only version of Lodash)
2. Implementing a custom recursive function using `let rec = f => { ... }`
3. Using a library like `immer` for immutable data structures
4. Creating a custom shallow copy method and then recursively copying nested objects

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may not offer the same level of performance, convenience, or robustness as the methods listed in the benchmark.

In conclusion, the benchmark provides a comprehensive comparison of four methods to create deep copies of objects. Each method has its pros and cons, and understanding these differences can help developers choose the most suitable approach for their specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

RFDC clone vs Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone vs recursive deep copy 3 (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Json clone vs RFDC copy vs Recursive deep copy

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Json clone

RFDC copy

Recursive deep copy

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):