Benchmark: Lodash clone vs JSON 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 clone
myCopy = _.clone(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 clone
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.

Let's break down the benchmark and its results.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two ways to create a copy of an object: using Lodash's `clone` function and the built-in `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` method.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Lodash clone**: Using the `_.clone()` function from the Lodash library, which creates a deep copy of the original object.
2. **JSON Clone**: Using the `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` method, which converts the original object to a JSON string and then parses it back into an object.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Lodash clone**:
	* Pros: Creates a deep copy, preserving all nested properties and their values.
	* Cons: Requires the Lodash library to be included in the benchmark.
	* Notes: This method is generally considered safer and more reliable than the JSON Clone method, especially when dealing with complex data structures.
2. **JSON Clone**:
	* Pros: Fast and lightweight, as it only requires a single function call.
	* Cons: Creates a shallow copy, which means that only the top-level properties are copied, while nested properties are lost.
	* Notes: This method is suitable for simple data structures, but may not be suitable for more complex cases.

**Library**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used as a library to provide the `clone` function. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object transformation, and more.

**JavaScript Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different methods for creating an object copy.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to create your own benchmarks using these options, you might consider testing other methods for creating object copies, such as:

1. **For...in loops**: Using a for-in loop to iterate over the properties of the original object and creating a new object with those same properties.
2. **Array.prototype.slice()**: Creating a shallow copy of an array by using Array.prototype.slice().
3. **structuredClone()**: Using the structuredClone function, which creates a deep copy of an object while preserving references to cyclic objects.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics or trade-offs compared to the Lodash clone and JSON Clone methods tested here.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash clone vs JSON Clone (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash clone vs Json clone

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash clone

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):