Benchmark: TestDeepCopy1 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Stringify
var obj = {a: "hello", c: "test", po: 33, arr: [1, 2, 3, 4], anotherObj: {a: 33, str: "whazzup"}}; var obj2 = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj));
Structuredclone
var obj = {a: "hello", c: "test", po: 33, arr: [1, 2, 3, 4], anotherObj: {a: 33, str: "whazzup"}}; var obj2 = structuredClone(obj)
loadash1111
var obj = {a: "hello", c: "test", po: 33, arr: [1, 2, 3, 4], anotherObj: {a: 33, str: "whazzup"}}; var obj2 = _.cloneDeep(obj, true);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Stringify
Structuredclone
loadash1111

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 JSON data and explain what's being tested, the options compared, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition is the JavaScript code that sets up the test case. In this case, there are three test cases:

1. `Stringify`: This test creates an object `obj` with various properties (strings, numbers, arrays) and then parses it using `JSON.stringify()` to create a new object `obj2`.
2. `Structuredclone`: Similar to the previous test, but uses `structuredClone()` instead of `JSON.stringify()`.
3. `loadash1111`: This test creates an object `obj` with various properties (strings, numbers, arrays) and then clones it using Lodash's `_.cloneDeep()` function.

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

* `JSON.stringify()`
* `structuredClone()`
* `_.cloneDeep()` (from Lodash)

These functions are used to create a deep copy of the original object, which means they need to recursively clone all nested properties and values.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`JSON.stringify()`**:
	* Pros: Simple and widely supported by most browsers.
	* Cons: Can be slower than other methods due to its recursive nature and stringification overhead.
2. **`structuredClone()`**:
	* Pros: Designed specifically for deep cloning, with better performance and support for modern browsers.
	* Cons: Limited browser support (mainly Chrome and Edge), as it's a relatively new feature.
3. **`_.cloneDeep()` (Lodash)**:
	* Pros: Well-tested and widely supported, especially in Node.js environments.
	* Cons: Adds additional library dependency and may not be suitable for all use cases due to its proprietary implementation.

**Other Considerations**

* All three options create a shallow copy of the original object if it's an array or another object. To create a deep copy, you need to use `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))` (or equivalent) on arrays and objects, as shown in the benchmark definition.
* The choice of option depends on your specific requirements, such as browser support, performance, and library dependencies.

**Library Usage**
In the provided benchmark data, `_.cloneDeep()` from Lodash is used in the third test case. This indicates that the developer wants to compare the performance of `_.cloneDeep()` with other deep cloning methods.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned in the provided data.

Related benchmarks:

TestDeepCopy1 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Stringify vs Structuredclone vs loadash1111

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Stringify

Structuredclone

loadash1111

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):