Benchmark: Lodash4 CloneDeep

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 = {
  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:

run1
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
run2
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
run1
run2

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 MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance of Lodash's `cloneDeep` function, which creates a deep copy of an object or array. The benchmark tests how fast different browsers can execute this function on various inputs.

**Options compared:**

There are only two test cases (`run1` and `run2`) that differ in their input data. In both cases, the same Lodash version (`4.17.10`) is used, but with slightly different input objects:

* `MyObject`: a nested object with a few properties, including an object `jayson` inside.
* `myCopy`: an empty variable before assignment.

**Pros and Cons of different approaches:**

1. **Using the same input data (`run1`):**
	* Pros: Simplifies comparison between browsers, reduces variance in results due to different inputs.
	* Cons: May not accurately reflect real-world usage scenarios where input data varies.
2. **Using a different input data (`run2`):**
	* Pros: Provides more realistic test case for browser performance, as it simulates actual use cases.
	* Cons: Introduces additional variability, making direct comparisons with `run1` less straightforward.

**Library and its purpose:**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks like array manipulation, object transformation, and more. In this benchmark, the `cloneDeep` function is used to create a deep copy of an object or array, which is essential for ensuring data integrity in certain scenarios.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None mentioned explicitly in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark using different libraries or approaches, here are some alternatives:

1. **Use a different cloning library:** Instead of Lodash's `cloneDeep`, consider using another popular JavaScript library like Immer.js or DeepCloneJS.
2. **Simulate real-world inputs:** Create more complex input data that mimics real-world usage scenarios, such as nested objects with recursive properties or arrays with large numbers of elements.
3. **Test multiple browser versions:** In addition to Chrome 68, test other popular browsers like Firefox, Safari, Edge, and Internet Explorer.

By considering these alternatives, you can create a more comprehensive benchmark that better reflects real-world usage scenarios and provides more accurate results for comparing different JavaScript libraries and browser performance.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash4 CloneDeep (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: run1 vs run2

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

run1

run2

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):