Benchmark: test clone deep - 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:


function x(clone, obj) {
   for(var i in obj)
     clone[i] = (typeof obj[i] == "object" && obj[i] != null) ? x(obj[i].constructor(), obj[i]) : obj[i];
   return clone;
}

var copyArray = [];
var copyObject = {
  id: 1,
  name: "Hello",
  x: true,
  i: {
    y: false,
    a: {
      b: {
        nested: true,
        last: "world"
      },
      foo: "bar"
    },
    c: new Date()
  }
};

for(var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
  copyArray.push(_.cloneDeep(copyObject));
}

Tests:

Copy Array x
var y = x([], copyArray); console.log(y);
Copy Array lodash
var y = _.cloneDeep(copyArray) console.log(y);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Copy Array x
Copy Array lodash

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 llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the details of this benchmark.

**What is tested:**

The benchmark tests the performance of two different approaches to copying an array in JavaScript:

1. **Manual cloning using a recursive function `x`**: This approach uses a custom function `x` that recursively clones objects and arrays, creating a deep copy of the original data.
2. **Using the `_cloneDeep` method from Lodash library**: This approach leverages the built-in `_cloneDeep` method from the popular JavaScript utility library Lodash.

**What options are compared:**

The two test cases compare the execution time of these two approaches:

* "Copy Array x" tests the manual cloning using the `x` function.
* "Copy Array lodash" tests the cloning using the `_cloneDeep` method from Lodash.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Manual cloning using `x` function**:
	* Pros:
		+ No external library dependencies required.
		+ Can be implemented in a custom JavaScript environment (e.g., browser, Node.js).
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual implementation and maintenance.
		+ May lead to errors or performance issues if not implemented correctly.
2. **Using Lodash `_cloneDeep` method**:
	* Pros:
		+ Widely used and well-tested library with a robust cloning mechanism.
		+ No need for manual implementation, reducing the risk of errors.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires including an external library (Lodash), which may impact page load times or increase bundle sizes.
		+ Adds dependencies to your project.

**Other considerations:**

1. **Memory usage**: The benchmark measures execution time, but in a real-world scenario, memory usage would also be an important consideration. Cloning large datasets can lead to increased memory consumption, which may cause performance issues or even crashes.
2. **Browser support and compatibility**: Lodash's `_cloneDeep` method is widely supported across browsers and environments. However, if you choose to implement the `x` function manually, ensure it works correctly in all target browsers and platforms.

**Alternative approaches:**

1. **Using native browser cloning methods**: Some modern browsers (e.g., Chrome 61+, Firefox 52+) provide a built-in method called `structuredClone()` or `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())`, which can clone objects and arrays.
2. **Other JavaScript libraries**: Other utility libraries like underscore.js, jQuery, or even VanillaJS have their own cloning methods that might be faster or more efficient than Lodash's `_cloneDeep`.
3. **Native JavaScript techniques**: Some clever JavaScript implementations use native functions like `Object.create()` or `Array.prototype.map()` to create shallow clones of objects and arrays.

By comparing these approaches, developers can choose the most suitable method for their specific use case, taking into account factors like performance, memory usage, browser support, and library dependencies.

Related benchmarks:

test clone deep (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Copy Array x vs Copy Array lodash

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Copy Array x

Copy Array lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):