Benchmark: Underscore clone vs JSON Clone

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.8.3/underscore-min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var MyObject = [{dateOfBirth_dateOfBirth: "babyBoomers", headcount: 644},{dateOfBirth_dateOfBirth: "genX", headcount: 605},{dateOfBirth_dateOfBirth: "millennial", headcount: 805}];

var myCopy = [];

Tests:

Lodash cloneDeep
_.each(MyObject, function(d) { myCopy.push(_.clone(d)); });
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.

I'll break down the provided JSON benchmark definition, explain what's being tested, and discuss the pros and cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The test case compares two methods for creating copies of an object:

1. `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject))`: This method uses the `JSON` API to serialize the original object (`MyObject`) into a JSON string, and then parses that string back into a new object.
2. `_ (function(d) { myCopy.push(_.clone(d)); })(MyObject)`: This method uses the Underscore.js library's `cloneDeep` function to create a deep copy of each object in the array (`MyObject`) and stores it in a new array (`myCopy`).

**Options Compared:**

The two methods being tested are:

1. **JSON Clone**: Uses `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` to create a shallow copy of the original object.
2. **Lodash Clone Deep**: Uses Underscore.js's `cloneDeep` function to create a deep copy of each object in the array.

**Pros and Cons:**

**JSON Clone:**

Pros:

* Fast and lightweight, as it only requires JSON serialization and parsing.
* Simple to implement, as it doesn't require any additional libraries.

Cons:

* Creates a **shallow copy**, meaning that only the top-level properties of the original object are copied. This can lead to unexpected behavior if the objects contain nested references or complex data structures.
* Can be slower for large datasets, since JSON serialization and parsing can be expensive operations.

**Lodash Clone Deep:**

Pros:

* Creates a **deep copy**, meaning that all nested references and complex data structures are preserved.
* Can handle larger datasets more efficiently, as it avoids the overhead of JSON serialization and parsing.
* More robust and predictable behavior, especially for objects with intricate data structures.

Cons:

* Requires an additional library (Underscore.js), which can add to the overall size and complexity of the codebase.
* Can be slower than the JSON clone method for very large datasets, since it needs to execute the `cloneDeep` function on each object in the array.

**Library:**

The Underscore.js library is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides various helper functions for tasks such as data manipulation, functional programming, and more. In this case, the `cloneDeep` function is used to create a deep copy of objects, which is essential for the test case.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

None mentioned in this explanation.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives for creating copies of objects include:

1. **Object.assign()**: This method creates a shallow copy of an object by assigning its properties to a new object.
2. **Array.prototype.slice() + Object.assign()**: This method creates a deep copy of an array by using `slice()` to create a shallow copy, and then assigning the resulting array's elements to a new object using `Object.assign()`.
3. **lodash.clone()**: Similar to Underscore.js's `cloneDeep`, but part of the Lodash library.
4. **json-stringify-safe() + JSON.parse()**: This method uses the `json-stringify-safe` library to create a deep copy of an object by serializing it as JSON and then parsing that string back into a new object.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own pros and cons, and may be more or less suitable depending on your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Underscore clone vs JSON Clone (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Json clone

Created: 6 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):