Benchmark: test clonedeep - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

let bigArray = [];
for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
    bigArray.push([{
      first: i,
      second: `${i} som en sträng`,
      third: i * 3.14,
    }]);
}
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...'
    },
    bigobjectArray: bigArray,
};

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

clonedeep
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
structuredClone
myCopy = structuredClone(MyObject);
json parsing
myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject));

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 44 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 38 runs

json parsing

277/s

structuredClone

201/s

clonedeep

168/s

Fastest: json parsing (1.7x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ json parsing: 277 ops/sec
• structuredClone: 201 ops/sec
• clonedeep: 168 ops/sec

Firefox 6 runs

structuredClone

320/s

json parsing

308/s

clonedeep

97/s

Fastest: structuredClone (3.3x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ structuredClone: 320 ops/sec
• json parsing: 308 ops/sec
• clonedeep: 97 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
clonedeep
structuredClone
json parsing

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:140.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/140.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 140 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

structuredClone

124/s

json parsing

94/s

clonedeep

76/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ structuredClone	124 Ops/sec
json parsing	94 Ops/sec
clonedeep	76 Ops/sec

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 and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition provides two scripts: `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`. The `Script Preparation Code` defines an object `MyObject` with various properties, including a nested array `bigArray`, which contains objects with different data types (number, string, and boolean). The `Html Preparation Code` includes a script tag that loads the Lodash library.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three individual test cases:

1. **clonedeep**: This test case uses the `_.cloneDeep()` function from Lodash to create a deep copy of `MyObject`.
2. **structuredClone**: This test case uses the `structuredClone()` function (new in JavaScript) to create a deep clone of `MyObject`.
3. **json parsing**: This test case uses the `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject))` syntax to parse and recreate `MyObject`.

**What is being tested?**

These three test cases are designed to compare the performance of different methods for creating a deep copy of an object with nested arrays.

**Options compared:**

* **_.cloneDeep()**: A function from Lodash that creates a deep clone of an object.
* **structuredClone()**: A new JavaScript function (introduced in ECMAScript 2020) that creates a deep clone of an object, preserving all its properties and their values.
* **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject))**: A syntax that parses and recreates `MyObject` using the JSON stringification method.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **_.cloneDeep()**:
	+ Pros: Easy to use, efficient, and widely supported by libraries like Lodash.
	+ Cons: May not work as expected with certain data types or nested structures.
* **structuredClone()**:
	+ Pros: New in JavaScript, designed for deep cloning, and preserves all properties and their values.
	+ Cons: Only available in modern browsers and may require additional setup for older environments.
* **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject))**:
	+ Pros: Simple syntax, widely supported by most browsers and Node.js versions.
	+ Cons: May not work correctly with certain data types (e.g., functions, undefined) or nested structures.

**Other considerations:**

* The `structuredClone()` function is designed to be more efficient than the other two options, as it uses a binary format to serialize the object's properties and their values. However, its availability is limited to modern browsers.
* The `_.cloneDeep()` function is widely supported by libraries like Lodash, making it a popular choice for deep cloning. However, its performance may vary depending on the specific use case.

**Alternatives:**

* For creating a deep clone of an object with nested arrays, you can also consider using other libraries or frameworks that provide similar functionality, such as `lodash` (alternative to `_.cloneDeep()`), `immer`, or `deepClone`.
* If performance is critical and modern browsers are not supported, you may need to implement your own custom cloning algorithm or use a different approach, such as serializing the object's properties and values using JSON.stringify().

I hope this explanation helps software engineers understand what is being tested in the provided benchmark!

test clonedeep (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `clonedeep vs structuredClone vs json parsing`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

clonedeep

structuredClone

json parsing

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 44 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 38 runs

Firefox 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

test clonedeep (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: clonedeep vs structuredClone vs json parsing

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

clonedeep

structuredClone

json parsing

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 44 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 38 runs

Firefox 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `clonedeep vs structuredClone vs json parsing`