Benchmark: Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone vs freeze and get - access a value 2

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

const createObject = () => {
  const obj = {}; 
  for (let i = 1; i <= 3000; i++) {
      obj[i] = i.toString();
  }
  return obj
}

var json = JSON.stringify(createObject());

var lodash = createObject();

var freeze = createObject()
Object.freeze(freeze);

Tests:

json
const copy = JSON.parse(json); const value = copy[500]
lodash
const copy = _.cloneDeep(lodash) const value = copy[500]
freeze
const value = freeze[500]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
json
lodash
freeze

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and its results, explaining what's being tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark tests three approaches to clone and access a value in an object:

1. **JSON Clone**: Serializes the original object using JSON.stringify() and then parses it back into a new object.
2. **Lodash CloneDeep**: Uses the `cloneDeep()` function from Lodash to create a deep copy of the original object.
3. **Freeze and Get**: Freezes the original object using Object.freeze() and then accesses a value in the frozen object.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates an object with 3000 properties, where each property is a string representation of its index (1 to 3000). The resulting JSON string is stored in the `json` variable. Another object, `lodash`, is created using the same method as above. A third object, `freeze`, is created and frozen using Object.freeze().

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a script tag that loads Lodash version 4.17.5 from a CDN.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **JSON Clone**: The benchmark definition uses the JSON.parse() function to parse the `json` string and then accesses the value at index 500 in the resulting object.
2. **Lodash CloneDeep**: The benchmark definition uses the `cloneDeep()` function from Lodash to create a deep copy of the `lodash` object and then accesses the value at index 500 in the cloned object.
3. **Freeze and Get**: The benchmark definition directly accesses the value at index 500 in the frozen `freeze` object.

**Results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

* **JSON Clone**: Took approximately 5 seconds to execute 5293 times per second.
* **Lodash CloneDeep**: Took approximately 0.5 seconds to execute 8288 times per second.
* **Freeze and Get**: Took approximately 0.05 seconds to execute 19430 times per second.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares three approaches:

1. **JSON Clone**: A simple, lightweight approach that uses JSON serialization and parsing.
2. **Lodash CloneDeep**: A more robust approach that uses a dedicated deep cloning function from Lodash.
3. **Freeze and Get**: An optimized approach that freezes the original object and then accesses values directly.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **JSON Clone**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, easy to implement.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for large objects or complex data structures.
2. **Lodash CloneDeep**:
	* Pros: Robust, efficient, and supports deep cloning.
	* Cons: Requires Lodash library, may add overhead.
3. **Freeze and Get**:
	* Pros: Optimized for performance, uses built-in object freezing mechanism.
	* Cons: Limited to accessing values directly in the frozen object.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing an approach, consider factors such as:

* Object size and complexity
* Performance requirements
* Code maintainability and readability
* Library dependencies (Lodash)

In this benchmark, Lodash CloneDeep appears to be the most efficient option, followed by Freeze and Get. However, the choice of approach ultimately depends on specific use case requirements and trade-offs between performance, code simplicity, and library dependencies.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
json	5293.2 Ops/sec
lodash	8288.0 Ops/sec
freeze	19430178.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone vs freeze and get - access a value 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: json vs lodash vs freeze

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

json

lodash

freeze

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):