Benchmark: cloneDeep vs JSON.*

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/2.4.1/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var myObj = {
    "name":"John",
    "age":30,
    "cars": {
        "car1":"Ford",
        "car2":"BMW",
        "car3":"Fiat"
    }
 }

Tests:

cloneDeep
let a = _.cloneDeep(myObj)
JSON.*
let a = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(myObj))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
cloneDeep
JSON.*

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 is comparing two approaches for creating a deep copy of an object in JavaScript:

1. `cloneDeep` from the Lodash library, which is a utility function for creating a deep copy of an object.
2. `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(myObj))`, which is a built-in JavaScript method for cloning objects.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these two approaches on the same input data (`myObj`). The test cases are:

* `cloneDeep`: Uses the `cloneDeep` function from Lodash to create a deep copy of `myObj`.
* `JSON.*`: Uses the built-in `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(myObj))` method to clone `myObj`.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Lodash (`cloneDeep`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a robust and efficient way to create deep copies.
		+ Includes additional features, such as supporting arrays and other complex data structures.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires including an external library (Lodash) in the benchmark, which may add overhead.
		+ May have a higher memory footprint due to the inclusion of the Lodash library.
2. **Built-in JavaScript (`JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(myObj))`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Does not require including an external library, reducing overhead and memory footprint.
		+ A built-in method, so it's likely already available in most browsers or environments.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the additional parsing step required by `JSON.parse()`.
		+ May not support all types of data structures (e.g., arrays) as efficiently as Lodash.

**Library:**

The Lodash library is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array manipulation, and object manipulation. In this benchmark, the `cloneDeep` function is used to create a deep copy of an object.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that the use of `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(myObj))` relies on the fact that many browsers and environments support this specific usage of `JSON.parse()`.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you wanted to include other alternatives for creating deep copies in your benchmark, some options might include:

* Using a library like `lodash-es` (a smaller, more lightweight version of Lodash)
* Implementing a custom deep copy function using recursive object cloning
* Using the `Object.assign()` method with an array of target properties (`Object.assign({}, myObj)`)

Keep in mind that each alternative would have its own pros and cons, as discussed earlier.

Related benchmarks:

cloneDeep vs JSON.* (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: cloneDeep vs JSON.*

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

cloneDeep

JSON.*

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):