Benchmark: Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.10/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var MyObject =  {
    "_id": "5af7e5f9c3a3aa2c8495305e",
    "index": 0,
    "guid": "f4a86db0-f457-400e-9280-e4e84a97191c",
    "isActive": true,
    "balance": "$1,546.38",
    "picture": "http://placehold.it/32x32",
    "age": 35,
    "eyeColor": "blue",
    "name": {
      "first": "Trina",
      "last": "Bonner"
    },
    "company": "PHOTOBIN",
    "email": "trina.bonner@photobin.co.uk",
    "phone": "+1 (907) 417-3108",
    "address": "132 Rutherford Place, Munjor, Iowa, 9843",
    "about": "Sit consectetur dolor nostrud dolore culpa cupidatat. Commodo minim qui sint est est excepteur est id commodo est ut sunt qui amet. Aute veniam tempor sunt irure nulla.",
    "registered": "Tuesday, February 16, 2016 4:23 PM",
    "latitude": "-21.702025",
    "longitude": "-41.621726",
    "tags": [
      "consequat",
      "nulla",
      "aute",
      "aute",
      "aliqua"
    ],
    "range": [
      0,
      1,
      2,
      3,
      4,
      5,
      6,
      7,
      8,
      9
    ],
    "friends": [
      {
        "id": 0,
        "name": "Tommie Noble"
      },
      {
        "id": 1,
        "name": "Edna French"
      },
      {
        "id": 2,
        "name": "Durham Faulkner"
      }
    ],
    "greeting": "Hello, Trina! You have 8 unread messages.",
    "favoriteFruit": "strawberry"
  };

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:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash cloneDeep	248367.8 Ops/sec
Json clone	437831.8 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's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to create a deep copy of an object: using Lodash's `cloneDeep` function and using the built-in `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` method.

**Options Compared**

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**: This approach uses the `cloneDeep` function from the Lodash library, which is a utility library for JavaScript that provides various functions for working with data structures like arrays and objects.
2. **JSON Clone**: This approach uses the built-in `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` method to create a deep copy of the object.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**:
	* Pros: Generally faster and more efficient than using `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())`, especially for large objects.
	* Cons: Requires including an additional library (Lodash) in the project, which may add unnecessary overhead.
2. **JSON Clone**:
	* Pros: No external dependencies required, as it's a built-in method.
	* Cons: May be slower and less efficient than `cloneDeep`, especially for large objects.

**Library**

The Lodash library is used to provide the `cloneDeep` function, which creates a deep copy of an object by recursively cloning all properties of the original object. The `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` method, on the other hand, uses JavaScript's built-in serialization and deserialization mechanisms to create a shallow copy of an object.

**Special JS Feature**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. Both approaches are straightforward and don't require any advanced features or syntax.

**Other Considerations**

When deciding between these two approaches, consider the size and complexity of your objects, as well as the trade-offs between performance, ease of use, and additional dependencies.

If you're working with large datasets or complex data structures, `cloneDeep` might be a better choice due to its potential for faster execution times. However, if simplicity and minimalism are more important, using `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` could be a viable option.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for creating deep copies of objects include:

1. **`Object.assign()`**: While not as efficient as `cloneDeep`, `Object.assign()` can be used to create a shallow copy of an object.
2. **`lodash.clone()`**: Lodash provides another cloning function called `clone()`, which creates a shallow copy of an object.
3. **Custom implementation**: You could write your own custom function to create a deep copy of an object, using techniques like recursive iteration and property propagation.

Ultimately, the choice between these approaches depends on your specific needs and priorities.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Json clone

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Json clone

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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