Benchmark: Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone

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 = 'test123';

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

Lodash cloneDeep
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
Json clone
myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash cloneDeep
Json clone

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 what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to create a deep copy of an object: using Lodash's `cloneDeep` function and using the `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject))` method. The benchmark aims to determine which approach is faster and more efficient for creating a deep copy of an object in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**: This method uses Lodash's implementation of a deep cloning algorithm, which recursively traverses the object graph and creates new objects for each nested property.
2. **JSON Clone**: This method uses the `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject))` syntax to create a deep copy of the object.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash cloneDeep**:
	+ Pros: Generally faster and more efficient than the JSON clone method, especially for large objects with complex nested structures.
	+ Cons: Requires an additional library (Lodash) to be included in the benchmark, which may add latency to the test. May not work as expected if the Lodash library is not properly initialized or configured.
* **JSON Clone**:
	+ Pros: Does not require any additional libraries, making it a simpler and more lightweight option.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than Lodash cloneDeep for large objects, especially those with complex nested structures. May also throw errors if the object contains circular references.

**Library Usage**

The `cloneDeep` method is part of the Lodash library, which provides a utility function for deep cloning objects in JavaScript. The `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject))` syntax is a built-in JavaScript method that creates a shallow copy of an object. However, this method does not work correctly with nested objects and can throw errors if circular references are present.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses the `_` variable as a reference to the Lodash library's global namespace, which allows it to access the `cloneDeep` function without having to specify the full path to the function. This is a common pattern in JavaScript benchmarks and tests.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark measures the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) for each test case, which provides a relative measure of performance.
* The benchmark results are presented as a list of objects, with each object containing information about the browser, device platform, operating system, and execution count for each test case.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to Lodash cloneDeep include:

1. `Object.assign()`: Creates a shallow copy of an object using the `Object.assign()` method.
2. `Array.prototype.slice()`: Creates a shallow copy of an array or object using the `Array.prototype.slice()` method.
3. Custom implementation: You can write your own custom function to recursively traverse and clone objects.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics compared to Lodash cloneDeep, especially for large objects with complex nested structures.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Json clone

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Json clone

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):