Benchmark: Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone vs Obj Clone

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));
Obj Clone
myCopy = {...MyObject};

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash cloneDeep
Json clone
Obj 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.

Let's dive into the explanation of the benchmark.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test that compares three approaches to create a deep copy of an object:

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**: Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript. `cloneDeep` is a function that creates a deep copy of an object.
2. **JSON Clone**: This method uses the built-in `JSON.stringify()` and `JSON.parse()` functions to create a deep copy of an object.
3. **Obj Clone**: This approach uses the spread operator (`{...}`) to create a shallow copy, but it can be modified to work with deep copying by using `Object.assign()` or other methods.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the execution time of each approach:

* Lodash cloneDeep
* JSON Clone (using `JSON.stringify()` and `JSON.parse()`)
* Obj Clone (using the spread operator)

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: Requires an additional library (Lodash) to be included in the test environment.
2. **JSON Clone**:
	* Pros: Simple and lightweight, no additional libraries required.
	* Cons: Can be slower than Lodash cloneDeep due to the overhead of stringifying and parsing JSON.
3. **Obj Clone**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient for shallow copying.
	* Cons: May not work correctly for deep copying or objects with complex structures.

**Library usage**

Lodash is used in the `cloneDeep` function, which provides a fast and efficient way to create deep copies of objects.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The benchmark uses the spread operator (`{...}`) in the `Obj Clone` approach, which is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2018. This operator allows for shorthand object creation, but it may not work correctly with all types of objects or deep copying scenarios.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to consider alternative approaches, some options might include:

* Using the `Object.assign()` method or other methods like `Array.prototype.slice()` and `Object.create()` for shallow copying.
* Implementing a custom deep copying function using recursion, iteration, or other techniques.
* Using libraries like Immer, Ramda, or FastJsonParser for optimized object manipulation.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs in terms of performance, simplicity, and compatibility with different JavaScript environments.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone vs Obj Clone (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Json clone vs Obj Clone

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Json clone

Obj 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):