Benchmark: Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone (with array)

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

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;

Tests:

Lodash cloneDeep
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
Json clone
myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash cloneDeep
Json clone

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 benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark measures two different approaches to create a deep copy of an object:

1. **JSON Clone**: This approach uses `JSON.parse()` and `JSON.stringify()` methods to create a deep copy of the input object.
2. **Lodash cloneDeep**: This approach uses the `_.cloneDeep()` function from the Lodash library.

**Options Compared:**
The two options being compared are:

* JSON Clone (using `JSON.parse()` and `JSON.stringify()` methods)
* Lodash cloneDeep (using the `_._cloneDeep()` function)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **JSON Clone:**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and lightweight
		+ No external dependencies required
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slow due to stringification and parsing
		+ May not work correctly with complex data structures (e.g., circular references)
2. **Lodash cloneDeep:**
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and efficient
		+ Handles complex data structures (e.g., circular references) correctly
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an external dependency (Lodash library)

**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:

1. **Using the `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.
2. **Using a library like Immutable.js**: This library provides a set of immutable data structures and functions for creating deep copies.
3. **Implementing a custom deep cloning algorithm**: Depending on the specific requirements, developers might choose to implement their own custom algorithm for creating deep copies.

Other alternatives that could be used in this benchmark include:

1. **Using `JSON.parse()` and `JSON.stringify()` methods with a custom replacer function**:
```javascript
function cloneDeep(obj) {
  return JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj));
}
```
2. **Using the `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.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone (with array) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Json clone

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Json clone

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):