Benchmark: object spread vs immutable-js corrected

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/immutable/3.8.2/immutable.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/immutability-helper@2.7.0/index.min.js"></script>

Tests:

object spread
const obj = {}; for(i=0;i<100000;i++){ obj[i] = 'some long string which will need to be copied'; } const obj2 = {key: 'This is final object'} const final = {obj2, ...obj}; for(i=0;i<100000;i++){ final[i] = 'some long string which will need to be copied'; }
immutable-js
const obj = {}; for(i=0;i<100000;i++){ obj[i] = 'some long string which will need to be copied'; } const immObj = Immutable.Map(obj); const obj2 = {key: 'This is final object'} const final = immObj.merge(obj2); for(i=0;i<100000;i++){ final.set(i,'some long string which will need to be copied'); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
object spread
immutable-js

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark definition and test cases to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches: object spread using the `...` operator and immutable JavaScript library (Immutable.js) with its helper function `merge()`. The goal is to measure which approach is faster for creating a new object by spreading an existing object's properties onto it, while also copying a large amount of data.

**Options being compared**

1. **Object spread using the `...` operator**: This method creates a new object by iterating over the properties of the original object (`obj`) and adding them to the new object (`final`). The `...` operator is used to spread the properties.
2. **Immutable.js with merge() function**: This approach uses the Immutable.js library, which provides immutable data structures. It creates a new Immutable Map instance from the original object (`obj`) and then merges it with another Immutable Map instance containing the `obj2` object.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Object spread using the `...` operator**:
	* Pros: Easy to implement, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for large datasets or complex objects due to potential memory allocation issues.
2. **Immutable.js with merge() function**:
	* Pros: Ensures immutability, which can be beneficial in certain scenarios, and provides a more robust way of handling data updates.
	* Cons: Requires an additional library dependency (Immutable.js) and may introduce overhead due to the immutable nature.

**Library usage**

In the benchmark definition, the Immutable.js library is used for its `merge()` function. The purpose of this library is to provide immutable data structures and functions that ensure data consistency and predictability.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark uses a special JavaScript feature: object spread using the `...` operator (introduced in ECMAScript 2018). This allows for concise and expressive way of creating new objects by spreading existing properties onto them.

**Other alternatives**

While the benchmark is comparing two specific approaches, other alternatives could include:

1. Using the spread operator (`{ ...obj }`) without the `final` object name.
2. Using a library like Lodash or underscore.js for deep cloning and merging objects.
3. Implementing custom logic for creating new objects by iterating over properties.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have varying trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability.

In conclusion, the benchmark is testing two approaches to creating new objects by spreading existing data: object spread using the `...` operator and Immutable.js with its `merge()` function. The choice between these approaches depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/92.0.4515.107 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 92 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
object spread	46.1 Ops/sec
immutable-js	12.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

object spread vs immutable-js corrected (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: object spread vs immutable-js

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

object spread

immutable-js

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):