Benchmark: Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone v. 3

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...',
    selectors: ['.sada', 'asdgqa', '.sada', 'asdgqa', '.sada', 'asdgqa'],
    selectors2: ['.sada', 'asdgqa', '.sada', 'asdgqa', '.sada', 'asdgqa'],
    selectors3: ['.sada', '.sadsafasa', 'asdasdasf', '.sasdasdasada', 'asdasdasdasdasd', '.sasdasdasada', 'asdasdasdasdasd']
  }
};

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.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of two approaches for creating a deep copy of an object: Lodash's `cloneDeep` function and the built-in `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` method.

**Options compared:**

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**: This approach uses the Lodash library to create a deep copy of the input object, `MyObject`.
2. **JSON Clone (v. 3)**: This approach uses the built-in `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` method to create a deep copy of the input object.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Lodash cloneDeep**:
	+ Pros:
		- Can handle complex data structures, including arrays and objects with nested properties.
		- Provides more control over the copying process, allowing for custom handlers and mutators.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an external library (Lodash), which may add overhead to the test.
* **JSON Clone (v. 3)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Built-in method, no additional libraries required.
		- Fast and lightweight.
	+ Cons:
		- May not handle complex data structures as well as Lodash's `cloneDeep`.
		- Limited control over the copying process.

**Library and its purpose:**

The library being used is Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for working with data, including copying objects. In this case, the `cloneDeep` function is specifically designed to create deep copies of complex data structures.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None mentioned in the provided JSON.

**Other considerations:**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the specific requirements of your use case:

* If you need to handle complex data structures and require fine-grained control over the copying process, Lodash's `cloneDeep` might be a better choice.
* If you're looking for a lightweight solution that can handle simple object copies and doesn't add significant overhead, JSON Clone (v. 3) could be sufficient.

**Alternatives:**

Other approaches for creating deep copies of objects include:

1. **Array.prototype.slice() + Object.assign()**: This method creates a shallow copy of an object by cloning its properties using `Object.assign()` and then creating a new array with the copied values.
2. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))**: While mentioned in the benchmark, this approach is generally considered slower than Lodash's `cloneDeep` or JSON Clone (v. 3) for large objects.
3. **Manual copying**: You can implement your own deep copy function using recursion to traverse and clone each property of the input object.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide the same level of control or performance as Lodash's `cloneDeep` or JSON Clone (v. 3).

Related benchmarks:

Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone v. 3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Json clone

Created: 7 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):