<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
var MyObject = {
description: 'Creates a deep copy of source, which should be an object or an array.',
myNumber: 123456789,
myBoolean: true,
testarray: [{
name: 1
}, {
name: 2
}, {
name: 3
}],
jayson: {
stringify: 'JSON.stringify() method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string....',
parse: 'JSON.parse() method parses a JSON string...'
}
};
var myCopy = null;
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject));
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Lodash cloneDeep | |
Json clone |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Lodash cloneDeep | 245932.6 Ops/sec |
Json clone | 258344.5 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.
Benchmark Definition: The benchmark measures two different approaches to create a deep copy of an object:
JSON.parse()
and JSON.stringify()
methods to create a deep copy of the input object._.cloneDeep()
function from the Lodash library.Options Compared: The two options being compared are:
JSON.parse()
and JSON.stringify()
methods)_._cloneDeep()
function)Pros and Cons of Each Approach:
Library Used:
In this benchmark, the Lodash library is used for its _.cloneDeep()
function. The purpose of this library is to provide a set of utility functions for functional programming tasks, including deep cloning.
Special JS Feature/Syntax: None mentioned in this specific benchmark definition.
Now, let's discuss other alternatives that could be used to create a deep copy of an object:
Object.assign()
method: This approach creates a shallow copy of an object by iterating over its enumerable properties and assigning them to a new object.Other alternatives that could be used in this benchmark include:
JSON.parse()
and JSON.stringify()
methods with a custom replacer function:function cloneDeep(obj) {
return JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj));
}
lodash-es
library's cloneDeep
function: This implementation is similar to Lodash's original, but uses ES modules instead of CommonJS.These alternatives would require additional setup and testing, but could potentially offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, memory usage, or complexity.