Benchmark: Immer produce vs Lodash cloneDeep

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/immer@3.1.3/dist/immer.umd.min.js"></script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

nestedState =  {
    key1: {
      key11: {
        key111: 'test'
      }
    }
  };

Tests:

Immer produce
const result = immer.produce((nestedState, draft) => { draft.key1.key11.key111 = 'updated' })
Lodash cloneDeep
const result = _.cloneDeep(nestedState); result.key1.key11.key111 = 'updated';

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Immer produce
Lodash cloneDeep

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches for creating a shallow copy of an object: `Immer.produce` (using the Immer library) and `_.cloneDeep` (using the Lodash library).

**Options Compared**

1. **Immer.produce**: This function creates a new, mutable copy of the original object using Immer's internal data structure.
2. **_.cloneDeep**: This function creates a deep copy of the original object using Lodash's implementation.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Immer.produce**:
	* Pros: Efficient for small to medium-sized objects, as it uses an optimized data structure under the hood.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for very large or complex objects, as it can lead to memory issues due to the creation of multiple layers of references.
2. **_.cloneDeep**:
	* Pros: Creates a fully independent copy of the original object, which is useful when preserving the original object's structure and values.
	* Cons: May be slower than `Immer.produce` for small objects, as it involves creating a new JavaScript object with all the original properties.

**Library Descriptions**

1. **Immer**: A library for functional data structures in JavaScript. It provides an efficient way to create immutable copies of objects using its `produce` function.
2. **Lodash**: A utility library that provides various functions, including `cloneDeep`, which creates a deep copy of an object.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript features and syntax might affect the performance of these benchmarks, such as:

* ES6 classes
* Promises
* Async/await
* WebAssembly (WASM)

These features are not explicitly mentioned in the benchmark, so we'll assume they're not relevant.

**Other Alternatives**

1. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))**: This method creates a shallow copy of an object using JSON serialization.
2. **Object.assign()**: This method creates a shallow copy of an object by assigning its properties to a new object.
3. **Array.prototype.slice() + Object.assign()**: This approach involves creating a slice of the original array and then copying its elements into a new object.

These alternatives have different performance characteristics, trade-offs, and use cases compared to `Immer.produce` and `_.cloneDeep`.

Related benchmarks:

Immer produce vs Lodash cloneDeep (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Immer produce vs Lodash cloneDeep

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Immer produce

Lodash cloneDeep

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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