Benchmark: Clone Deep vs JSON Parse

HTML Preparation code:

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

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:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/146.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 146 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash cloneDeep	1824492.2 Ops/sec
Json clone	1838083.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and its results for you.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to create a deep copy of an object in JavaScript:

1. Using the `lodash` library's `cloneDeep()` function
2. Using the built-in `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` method

**Options Compared**

* **Lodash cloneDeep**: Uses the `_.cloneDeep()` function from the Lodash library to create a deep copy of the object.
	+ Pros: Provides a well-tested and widely used implementation of deep cloning, which can be more efficient than manual implementation.
	+ Cons: Adds an external dependency (Lodash), which may not be included in all environments.
* **Json clone**: Uses the `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` method to create a deep copy of the object.
	+ Pros: Built-in and widely supported, with minimal dependencies. However, it may not work correctly for all types of objects or values (e.g., circular references).
	+ Cons: Can be slower and more memory-intensive than `_.cloneDeep()`, especially for large objects.

**Library**

The Lodash library is used in the first test case (`Lodash cloneDeep`). Lodash is a popular utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, object transformation, and more. In this case, it's used to provide a convenient and efficient implementation of deep cloning.

**Other Considerations**

* **Manual Implementation**: Creating a deep copy manually would require writing custom code to handle different types of objects and values. While possible, it's often less efficient and error-prone than using a library like Lodash.
* **Circular References**: The `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` method will not work correctly for objects with circular references (i.e., properties that reference the same object). In contrast, `_.cloneDeep()` can handle these cases.

**Other Alternatives**

If you don't want to use an external library like Lodash, you could consider implementing your own deep cloning function using JavaScript's built-in `Object.assign()` and recursive functions. However, this approach would require more code and may not be as efficient or reliable as `_.cloneDeep()`.

Related benchmarks:

Clone Deep vs JSON Parse (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

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):