Benchmark: lodash cloneDeep vs json.stringify

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var test = {key: 'test'};

Tests:

stringified
var stringified = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(test));
cloned
var cloned = _.cloneDeep(test);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
stringified
cloned

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 world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON defines a benchmark test that compares the performance of two approaches:

1. **JSON.stringify**: This method creates a new string representation of an object, which is then parsed back to its original form using `JSON.parse()`.
2. **Lodash cloneDeep**: This function creates a deep copy of an object using Lodash's `cloneDeep` utility.

The benchmark test consists of two individual test cases:

* **stringified**: Creates a string representation of the input object `test` using `JSON.stringify()` and then parses it back to its original form.
* **cloned**: Uses Lodash's `cloneDeep` function to create a deep copy of the input object `test`.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **JSON.parse() + JSON.stringify()**: This method involves creating a string representation of the object and then parsing it back to its original form.
2. **Lodash cloneDeep**: This function creates a deep copy of the object without modifying the original.

**Pros and Cons**

* **JSON.parse() + JSON.stringify():**
	+ Pros:
		- Simple and widely supported implementation.
		- Can be useful for serializing objects to strings or vice versa.
	+ Cons:
		- Creates an additional string representation, which can lead to performance overhead.
		- Requires parsing the resulting string back into an object, which can also incur performance costs.
* **Lodash cloneDeep:**
	+ Pros:
		- Creates a deep copy of the object without modifying the original.
		- Can be faster than the `JSON.parse() + JSON.stringify()` approach for large objects.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an external library (Lodash) to be included in the benchmark.
		- May not be supported by older browsers or environments.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for various tasks, including object manipulation, array processing, and more. The `cloneDeep` function is specifically designed to create deep copies of objects, which can be useful in scenarios where you need to preserve the original structure of an object.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as ES6 modules, async/await, or Promises. The code snippets are straightforward and easy to understand.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to deep copying objects in JavaScript, you could consider:

* **Object.assign()**: This method creates a shallow copy of an object by copying its own enumerable properties.
* **Array.prototype.slice() + Object.assign()**: This approach creates a shallow copy of an array-like object and then converts it to an object using `Object.assign()`.
* **For...of loop + JSON.parse()**: This approach uses a for-of loop to iterate over the object's properties and then creates a new object by parsing each property value.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as efficient or robust as Lodash's `cloneDeep` function, but they can be useful in specific situations.

Related benchmarks:

lodash cloneDeep vs json.stringify (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: stringified vs cloned

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

stringified

cloned

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):