Benchmark: Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone 2323123132123

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));
Assign
myCopy = Object.assign({}, MyObject)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash cloneDeep
Json clone
Assign

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 test.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests the performance of three different methods for creating a deep copy of an object:

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**: This method uses the `cloneDeep` function from the Lodash library to create a deep copy of the object.
2. **JSON Clone**: This method uses the `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(object))` approach to create a deep copy of the object.
3. **Assign**: This method uses the `Object.assign({}, object)` approach to create a deep copy of the object.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three methods on the same input object (`MyObject`). The goal is to determine which method is the fastest and most efficient.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**:
	* Pros: Efficient and well-tested, uses a specialized deep cloning algorithm.
	* Cons: Requires Lodash library, may have additional dependencies.
2. **JSON Clone**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, easy to implement, no external libraries required.
	* Cons: May not work correctly for all object types (e.g., arrays), can lead to performance issues with large objects.
3. **Assign**:
	* Pros: Simple and widely supported, works well for most object types.
	* Cons: May be slower than Lodash cloneDeep or JSON Clone, requires creating a new object.

**Library used**

The benchmark uses the Lodash library, which provides a robust implementation of the `cloneDeep` function. The library is used to simplify the deep cloning process and ensure consistency across different browsers and environments.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None are mentioned in this specific benchmark, but it's worth noting that other benchmarks may include special features like:

* **Async/Await**: Used for asynchronous operations.
* **Promises**: Used for handling asynchronous results.
* **Closures**: Used for creating functions with access to outer scope variables.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative methods for deep cloning objects, consider the following options:

1. **Array.prototype.slice.call() + JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())**: A combination of array slicing and JSON parsing to create a deep copy.
2. **Object.assign()`**: Similar to the `Assign` method used in this benchmark, but without creating a new object.
3. **immer.js**: A library that provides a safe and efficient way to create deep clones of objects.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its pros and cons, and some may be more suitable for specific use cases or performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash cloneDeep vs JSON Clone 2323123132123 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Json clone vs Assign

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Json clone

Assign

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):