Benchmark: immutable vs spread

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/immutable/4.0.0/immutable.min.js"></script>

Tests:

object spread
let obj = {}; for(i=0;i<100;i++){ const key = 'key'+i const value = 'value'+i obj = {...obj, [key]: {key, value}} }
immutable
let obj = Immutable.Map(); for(i=0;i<100;i++){ const key = 'key'+i const value = 'value'+i obj = obj.set(key, {key, value}) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
object spread
immutable

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark data and explain what is being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is represented by a JSON object that contains two test cases:

1. "immutable vs spread": This test case compares the performance of creating an immutable JavaScript object using the Immutable.js library versus spreading an existing object to create a new one.
2. "object spread"

The script preparation code for the first test case includes the inclusion of the Immutable.js library, which is used in the second test case.

**Options being compared**

In this benchmark, two approaches are being compared:

1. **Immutable.js library**: This library provides immutable data structures that cannot be modified once created. It's designed to provide thread-safe and predictable behavior for complex data transformations.
2. **Spread operator (`...`)**: This operator creates a new object by copying all enumerable own properties from the original object.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Immutable.js library**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides immutable data structures, which can lead to more predictable behavior and fewer concurrency issues.
		+ Can simplify complex data transformations by providing a high-level abstraction.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires additional setup (including importing the library) and may introduce extra overhead due to the creation of new objects.
2. **Spread operator (`...`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Native support in modern JavaScript environments, which can lead to better performance and reduced overhead compared to using a library.
	* Cons:
		+ Can lead to mutable state if not used carefully, as it only creates a shallow copy of the original object.

**Considerations**

In general, the choice between these two approaches depends on the specific use case and requirements. If predictability, thread-safety, and simplicity are important, using an immutable library like Immutable.js might be a good choice. However, if performance is critical and the codebase already uses modern JavaScript features, using the spread operator could be a more efficient option.

**Library: Immutable.js**

Immutable.js is a popular JavaScript library for working with immutable data structures. It provides a high-level abstraction over the underlying object model, making it easier to reason about complex data transformations. The library provides various data structure types, such as maps, lists, sets, and records, which can be used to create immutable objects.

**Special JS feature: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for creating immutable objects include:

1. **Lodash**: A popular utility library that provides a `cloneDeep` function for creating deep copies of objects.
2. **ES6 spread syntax with Object.assign()**: This approach combines the benefits of the spread operator with the predictability of `Object.assign()` to create new objects.

However, using libraries or custom solutions like these might not provide the same level of abstraction and convenience as Immutable.js.

Overall, this benchmark provides a good starting point for comparing the performance of two approaches to creating immutable JavaScript objects.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:97.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/97.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 97 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
object spread	5802.4 Ops/sec
immutable	12974.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

immutable vs spread (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: object spread vs immutable

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

object spread

immutable

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):