Benchmark: Custom Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone

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: 'Random description.',
  testNumber: 123456789,
  testBoolean: true,
  testObject: {
    testString: 'test string',
    testNumber: 12345
  },
  testArray: [{
    myName: 'test name',
    myNumber: 123245
  }]
},{
  description: 'Random description.',
  testNumber: 123456789,
  testBoolean: true,
  testObject: {
    testString: 'test string',
    testNumber: 12345
  },
  testArray: [{
    myName: 'test name',
    myNumber: 123245
  }]
}];

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 dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark compares two approaches to create a deep copy of an object in JavaScript:

1. **Lodash `cloneDeep`**: This method is part of the popular Lodash utility library. It creates a deep copy of an object, which means it recursively copies all nested properties and arrays.
2. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify)**: This is a built-in JavaScript method that creates a shallow copy of an object by serializing it to JSON and then parsing the resulting string back into an object.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. Lodash `cloneDeep`
2. JSON.parse(JSON.stringify)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Lodash `cloneDeep`**

Pros:

* Recursively creates deep copies of objects, including nested arrays
* Can handle complex data structures, such as cyclic references

Cons:

* Requires the Lodash library to be included in the project (as seen in the benchmark's HTML Preparation Code)
* May have performance overhead due to its recursive nature

**JSON.parse(JSON.stringify)**

Pros:

* Fast and efficient, as it only serializes and deserializes the object
* Does not require any additional libraries

Cons:

* Only creates shallow copies of objects, which means it will not recursively copy nested arrays
* May not work correctly with cyclic references or complex data structures

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses a custom JavaScript object (`MyObject`) as the test subject. This allows for a more controlled and repeatable comparison between the two approaches.
* The `myCopy` variable is assigned using both methods, allowing for direct comparisons of the resulting copies.

**Library Used: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functional programming helpers, including the `cloneDeep` method. It is widely used in web development and can be included in projects via CDN links or npm packages.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax Not Mentioned**

Since this benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax (e.g., async/await, Promises, arrow functions), there's no additional explanation needed for its usage.

Related benchmarks:

Custom Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Json clone

Created: 3 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):