Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
1b9d6bcd-bbfd-4b2d-9b5d-ab8dfbbd4bed
(version: 0)
lib config deep copy
Comparing performance of:
lodash vs native
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js'></script>
Script Preparation code:
var testObject = { logger: { console: { transport: { name: 'console', format: 'json', options: { isEnabled: true, }, }, rules: { importantTags: { name: 'important-tags', options: { isEnabled: true, tags: ['required'], }, }, globalThreshold: { name: 'global-threshold', options: { isEnabled: true, thresholdPercentage: 100, }, }, metaBlackListed: { name: 'meta-blacklisted', options: { isEnabled: true, blacklisted: [ { path: 'request.route', value: '/v1/healthcheck/info' }, { path: 'request.route', value: '/v1/healthcheck/ping' }, ], }, }, }, }, file: { transport: { name: 'file', format: 'json', options: { isEnabled: false, path: '/dev/stdout', }, formatterOptions: { omitStackTrace: false, }, }, rules: { importantTags: { name: 'important-tags', options: { isEnabled: true, tags: ['level:critical', 'level:error', 'level:warn', 'required'], }, }, globalThreshold: { name: 'global-threshold', options: { isEnabled: true, thresholdPercentage: 3, }, }, blacklistedTags: { name: 'blacklisted-tags', options: { isEnabled: true, tags: ['level:debug', 'level:verbose'], }, }, metaBlackListed: { name: 'meta-blacklisted', options: { isEnabled: true, blacklisted: [ { path: 'request.route', value: '/v1/healthcheck/info' }, { path: 'request.route', value: '/v1/healthcheck/ping' }, ], }, }, }, }, loggly: { transport: { name: 'loggly', format: 'json', options: { isEnabled: false, bucketSize: 1000, bucketTimeoutMs: 15000, loggly: { isBulk: true, json: true, token: 'sdfsfdf-d479-428c-8a3d-sdfsdfsdf', subdomain: 'plutotv', tags: ['adbucket', 'test', 'development'], }, }, formatterOptions: { omitStackTrace: false, }, }, rules: { importantTags: { name: 'important-tags', options: { isEnabled: true, tags: ['level:critical', 'level:error', 'level:warn', 'required'], }, }, globalThreshold: { name: 'global-threshold', options: { isEnabled: true, thresholdPercentage: 1, }, }, blacklistedTags: { name: 'blacklisted-tags', options: { isEnabled: true, tags: ['level:debug', 'level:verbose'], }, }, metaBlackListed: { name: 'meta-blacklisted', options: { isEnabled: true, blacklisted: [ { path: 'request.route', value: '/v1/healthcheck/info' }, { path: 'request.route', value: '/v1/healthcheck/ping' }, ], }, }, }, }, } }; var testCopy;
Tests:
lodash
testCopy = _.cloneDeep(testObject);
native
testCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(testObject));
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
lodash
native
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):
Let's dive into the explanation of what is being tested on the provided JSON. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark tests two approaches to create a deep copy of an object in JavaScript: 1. **Lodash (.cloneDeep)**: The first test case uses Lodash, a popular utility library for JavaScript. 2. **Native (JSON.parse(JSON.stringify))**: The second test case uses the native `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify)` method. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares two options for creating a deep copy of an object: 1. **Lodash (.cloneDeep)**: This approach uses Lodash's `cloneDeep` function to create a deep copy of the input object. 2. **Native (JSON.parse(JSON.stringify))**: This approach uses the native `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify)` method, which is not recommended for creating deep copies. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: **Lodash (.cloneDeep)** Pros: * More robust and efficient than the native approach * Handles complex object graphs with ease * Part of a well-maintained and widely-used library Cons: * Requires including an additional library (Lodash) * May have performance overhead due to dependency loading **Native (JSON.parse(JSON.stringify))** Pros: * Fast and lightweight * No additional dependencies required Cons: * Limited support for complex object graphs * May not handle certain data types correctly (e.g., functions, dates) **Considerations** When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors: * **Performance**: If performance is critical, Lodash's `cloneDeep` may be a better choice due to its efficiency and robustness. * **Maintenance**: If you prefer not to include additional libraries, the native approach may be sufficient for simple use cases. **Benchmark Results** The latest benchmark results show that Lodash's `cloneDeep` outperforms the native approach in terms of execution frequency (30649.068359375 vs 18678.431640625). However, it's essential to note that these results may vary depending on the specific test scenario and environment. Overall, both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. Lodash's `cloneDeep` is generally a safer and more efficient choice for creating deep copies of objects in JavaScript.
Related benchmarks:
Lodash vs IndexOf
sadsad
Compare String.match and RegEx.test
_last vs regex
lodash has vs native js (with .?)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?