Benchmark: Lodash deep clone vs JSON.stringfy

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

window.obj = { foo: 'some string', bar: 'another', subObj: { hey: 'you', what: 'are you doing' } }

Tests:

Lodash deep clone
const objClone = _.cloneDeep(window.obj);
JSON.stringfy
const objClone = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(window.obj));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash deep clone
JSON.stringfy

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches for creating a deep clone of an object in JavaScript: using Lodash's `cloneDeep` function and using the `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` method. The goal is to determine which approach is faster.

**Options Compared**

1. **Lodash's `cloneDeep` function**: This is a popular utility function in Lodash that creates a deep clone of an object. It recursively traverses the object graph, creating new objects for each nested property.
2. **`JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` method**: This method uses JSON serialization and deserialization to create a deep clone of an object. The `JSON.stringify()` method converts the object into a JSON string, which can then be parsed back into a JavaScript object using `JSON.parse()`.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash's `cloneDeep` function**:
	+ Pros: Fast, efficient, and easy to use.
	+ Cons: Adds an external dependency (Lodash), which may not be desirable for all projects.
* **`JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` method**:
	+ Pros: Lightweight, doesn't add any external dependencies.
	+ Cons: Slower than Lodash's `cloneDeep` function, as it involves serialization and deserialization steps.

**Library and Purpose**

The benchmark uses the Lodash library, which is a popular collection of utility functions for JavaScript. The `cloneDeep` function is specifically designed to create deep clones of objects, making it a useful tool for many use cases, such as data transformation or mocking.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

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

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to create a deep clone of an object without using Lodash, you can also consider other libraries like:

* `lodash-es`: A lightweight alternative to Lodash that uses modern JavaScript features.
* `immutability-helper`: A library specifically designed for creating immutable data structures in JavaScript.

For non-library solutions, you can use techniques like recursively traversing the object graph and creating new objects for each nested property. However, this approach may be slower and more cumbersome than using a dedicated library or function like Lodash's `cloneDeep`.

In summary, the benchmark compares two approaches for creating deep clones of objects: using Lodash's `cloneDeep` function versus the `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` method. While both approaches have their pros and cons, Lodash's `cloneDeep` function is generally faster and more efficient, but adds an external dependency.

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/100.0.4896.88 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 100 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash deep clone	1313123.9 Ops/sec
JSON.stringfy	987889.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash deep clone vs JSON.stringfy (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash deep clone vs JSON.stringfy

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash deep clone

JSON.stringfy

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):