Benchmark: lodash _.cloneDeep() vs deppClone()

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.10/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

class Foo {
}

function objectCopy(object) {
  if (!object) {
    return {};
  }

  const copyObject = {};
  for (const attribute in object) {
    if (Array.isArray(object[attribute])) {
      copyObject[attribute] = arrayCopy(object[attribute]);
      continue;
    }

    if (object[attribute] instanceof Object) {
      copyObject[attribute] = objectCopy(object[attribute]);
      continue;
    }

    copyObject[attribute] = object[attribute];
  }

  return copyObject;
}

function arrayCopy(array) {
  if (!array) {
    return [];
  }

  const copyArray = [];
  for (let i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
    if (Array.isArray(array[i])) {
      copyArray[i] = arrayCopy(array[i]);
      continue;
    }

    if (array[i] instanceof Object) {
      copyArray[i] = objectCopy(array[i]);
      continue;
    }

    copyArray[i] = array[i];
  }

  return copyArray;
}

var user = {
  name: "Teszt Elek",
  address: {
    country: "Magyarország",
    county: "Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplém megye",
    city: "Miskolc",
    street: "Felsőruzsin",
    streetType: "körút",
    houseNumber: "21"
  },
  job: {
    professional: "Szoftverfejleszto",
    company: {
      name: "Evosoft Hungary Kft.",
      group: {
        department: {
          name: "O5",
          code: "O5",
          teams: [
            "1",
            "2",
            "3",
            "4"
          ],
        },
        team: {
          name: "4",
          members: [
            "Gipsz Jakab",
            "Teszt Elek",
            "John Doe",
            "Jane Doe",
            "Gipsz Jakab",
            "Teszt Elek",
            "John Doe",
            "Jane Doe",
            "Gipsz Jakab",
            "Teszt Elek",
            "John Doe",
            "Jane Doe",
            "Gipsz Jakab",
            "Teszt Elek",
            "John Doe",
            "Jane Doe",
            "Gipsz Jakab",
            "Teszt Elek",
            "John Doe",
            "Jane Doe"
          ],
          responibilityFor: {
            share: {
              file: "//Something.dat",
              binary: [
                [2],
                [3],
                [5],
                [55],
                [1623],
                [1],
                [0],
                [1024],
                [2],
                [3],
                [5],
                [55],
                [1623],
                [1],
                [0],
                [1024],
                [2],
                [3],
                [5],
                [55],
                [1623],
                [1],
                [0],
                [1024]
              ],
              data: {
                binary: [
                  [2],
                  [3],
                  [5],
                  [55],
                  [1623],
                  [1],
                  [0],
                  [1024],
                  [2],
                  [3],
                  [5],
                  [55],
                  [1623],
                  [1],
                  [0],
                  [1024],
                  [2],
                  [3],
                  [5],
                  [55],
                  [1623],
                  [1],
                  [0],
                  [1024]
                ],
                obj: {
                  vami: "vami",
                  hami: "hami",
                  dami: {
                    ini: "ini",
                    ani: {
                      ani: "ani"
                    }
                  }
                }
              }
            }
          }
        }
      }
  	}
  }
}

Tests:

lodash
_.cloneDeep(user)
own
objectCopy(user)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
own

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/142.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 142 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash	5874.3 Ops/sec
own	85838.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two functions: `_.cloneDeep()` from the Lodash library and a custom function called `objectCopy()`. The test case uses a complex object with nested arrays and objects to create a realistic scenario for deep cloning.

**Comparison of Options**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Lodash's _.cloneDeep()**: This function is part of the Lodash library, which provides utility functions for functional programming. It's designed to recursively clone an object, creating new copies of all nested objects and arrays.
2. **Custom implementation: objectCopy()**: The custom implementation uses a recursive approach to create a deep copy of the object. It checks each property of the object to determine if it's an array or an object, and then recursively clones it.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Lodash's _.cloneDeep()**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and efficient
		+ Handles complex objects with nested arrays and objects
		+ Reduces boilerplate code
	* Cons:
		+ Adds external dependency (the Lodash library)
		+ May have performance overhead due to the need for a separate library
2. **Custom implementation: objectCopy()**:
	* Pros:
		+ No external dependencies
		+ Can be optimized for specific use cases
		+ Allows for custom logic and behavior
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more boilerplate code
		+ May have performance overhead due to the need for recursive cloning

**Performance Comparison**

The benchmark results show that the custom implementation (`objectCopy()`) has slightly better performance than Lodash's `_.cloneDeep()` on this specific test case, with an execution rate of 21574.38671875 compared to 21211.576171875.

However, it's essential to note that the performance difference might not be significant in all cases, and other factors like memory usage, cache hits, and overall system load should also be considered when choosing between these two approaches.

**Conclusion**

In summary, Lodash's `_.cloneDeep()` is a convenient and efficient solution for deep cloning objects, but it comes with an external dependency. The custom implementation (`objectCopy()`) offers more control and flexibility but requires more boilerplate code and potential performance overhead. The choice ultimately depends on the specific requirements of your project and your personal preferences as a developer.

Related benchmarks:

lodash _.cloneDeep() vs deppClone() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs own

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

own

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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