Benchmark: klona vs structuredClone

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://unpkg.com/klona@2.0.6/json/index.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:

klona
myCopy = klona.klona(MyObject);
Native structuredClone
myCopy = structuredClone(MyObject);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
klona
Native structuredClone

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/141.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 141 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
klona	3010161.8 Ops/sec
Native structuredClone	191567.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the Benchmark Definition JSON and the individual test cases.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests two approaches to create a deep copy of an object: `klona` (a third-party library) and the native JavaScript method `structuredClone`.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Klona**: A third-party library that provides a simple way to create a deep copy of objects.
2. **Native structuredClone**: The built-in JavaScript method that creates a deep copy of objects.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Klona**:
	+ Pros: Easy to use, simple API, and efficient.
	+ Cons: A third-party library, which means there may be additional dependencies or complexity.
* **Native structuredClone**:
	+ Pros: Built-in method, no additional dependencies required, and optimized for performance.
	+ Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or versions of JavaScript.

**Library description**

The `klona` library is a simple and efficient way to create a deep copy of objects. It provides a single function, `klona`, that takes an object as input and returns a new copy of the object.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and uses standard JavaScript features.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in creating deep copies of objects without using libraries, you can also use other approaches such as:

* Using `Object.assign()` to create a shallow copy, and then recursively creating a new object for each property.
* Using `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))` to create a deep copy. However, this method can be slower and more memory-intensive.

Here's an example of how you might implement a custom deep copying function:
```javascript
function deepCopy(obj) {
  if (typeof obj !== 'object') return obj;
  const copy = Array.isArray(obj) ? [] : {};
  for (const key in obj) {
    copy[key] = deepCopy(obj[key]);
  }
  return copy;
}
```
However, using a library like `klona` or the native `structuredClone` method is usually the simplest and most efficient way to create deep copies of objects.

Related benchmarks:

klona vs structuredClone (version: 0)

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

Comparing performance of: klona vs Native structuredClone

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

klona

Native structuredClone

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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