Benchmark: deep copy perf - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Tests:

stringify copy
const obj = { a: 1, b: 2, c: [ {a: 1, b: 2}, {a: 2, b: 3} ], d: [1,2,3,4] }; JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))
lodash copy
const obj = { a: 1, b: 2, c: [ {a: 1, b: 2}, {a: 2, b: 3} ], d: [1,2,3,4] }; _.cloneDeep(obj)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
stringify copy
lodash copy

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 JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests two different approaches to creating a deep copy of an object: using the `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))` method and using the `_cloneDeep` function from the Lodash library.

**Options compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **Using `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))`**: This approach uses the built-in JavaScript method to create a deep copy of an object. It's a simple and widely used technique, but it can be limited in its ability to handle complex objects.
2. **Using `_cloneDeep` function from Lodash library**: The Lodash library provides a more comprehensive way to create deep copies of objects, handling more edge cases and providing additional functionality.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. **Using `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))`**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and fast.
	* Cons: Limited ability to handle complex objects (e.g., arrays with circular references), may not work as expected with certain data types (e.g., dates, functions).
2. **Using `_cloneDeep` function from Lodash library**:
	* Pros: More comprehensive and flexible than the built-in method, handles more edge cases, and provides additional functionality.
	* Cons: Requires an external dependency (Lodash), may be slower due to the overhead of the clone operation.

**Other considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the specific requirements of your use case. If you need a simple, lightweight solution that can handle basic object structures, `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))` might suffice. However, if you're working with complex objects or require more advanced functionality, `_cloneDeep` from Lodash is likely a better choice.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None of the provided benchmark tests rely on any special JavaScript features or syntax that would be unfamiliar to most developers.

**Lodash library and its purpose**

The Lodash library is a popular utility belt for functional programming in JavaScript. Its `_cloneDeep` function creates a deep copy of an object, handling more complex data structures and edge cases compared to the built-in `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))` method.

For those interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some other options:

* **Using `Object.assign()`**: While not as comprehensive as Lodash's `_cloneDeep`, `Object.assign()` can be used to create a shallow copy of an object.
* **Using a custom implementation**: Depending on your specific requirements, you might consider implementing a custom deep copying function using JavaScript's built-in methods and data structures (e.g., arrays, objects).
* **Using other libraries or frameworks**: Some libraries or frameworks, like AngularJS or React, provide their own deep cloning functionality.

Related benchmarks:

deep copy perf (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: stringify copy vs lodash copy

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

stringify copy

lodash copy

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):