Benchmark: JSON stringify/parse vs structuredClone

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,
  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:

JSON stringify / parse
myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject));
Native structuredClone
myCopy = structuredClone(MyObject);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON stringify / parse
Native structuredClone

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 details of the provided benchmark.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases that compare the performance of `JSON.stringify()` and `structuredClone()` functions in JavaScript.

**Options compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`JSON.stringify()`**: This function converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string. It's a widely used method, but it can have some drawbacks, such as:
	* Slower performance compared to other methods.
	* May not work well with certain data types (e.g., objects with circular references).
2. **`structuredClone()`**: This is a newer function introduced in JavaScript 2020+ that creates a deep copy of an object or array while preserving its structure and data. It's designed to be faster and more efficient than `JSON.stringify()`.

**Pros and cons:**

* **`JSON.stringify()`**:
	+ Pros: Widely supported, easy to use, and works with most data types.
	+ Cons: Slower performance, may not work well with circular references, and can lead to large JSON strings.
* **`structuredClone()`**:
	+ Pros: Faster performance, preserves the structure of objects and arrays, and is designed for deep copying.
	+ Cons: Limited browser support (only available in modern browsers), and may require more complex code.

**Library used:**

The benchmark uses `lodash.js`, a popular utility library that provides various helper functions. In this case, it's used to define the object `MyObject` and its properties.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two specific functions.

**Benchmark preparation code:**

The script preparation code defines an object `MyObject` with several properties, including a nested object `jayson`, which contains references to the `JSON.stringify()` and `JSON.parse()` methods.

The HTML preparation code includes a reference to `lodash.js`, which is used in the script preparation code to define `MyObject`.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were looking for alternative approaches to deep copying objects or arrays, some options include:

* Using `Array.prototype.slice()` or `Object.assign()`: These methods can be used to create shallow copies of arrays and objects.
* Using libraries like `immer` or `deepcopy`: These libraries provide optimized functions for deep copying objects and arrays.

However, it's worth noting that `structuredClone()` is generally considered the best approach for deep copying in modern JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

JSON stringify/parse vs structuredClone (version: 0)

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/structuredClone

Comparing performance of: JSON stringify / parse vs Native structuredClone

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JSON stringify / parse

Native structuredClone

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):